

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Today, the Progressive Change Campaign Committee is partnering with Senate Democrats to introduce and rally around a Senate resolution calling for every American to have the choice of a public health insurance option. A broad progressive coalition will engage millions of Americans this week in support.
This Merkley-Schumer-Murray-Durbin-Sanders resolution is led in the Senate by Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Patty Murray (D-WA), Dick Durbin (D-IL), and Bernie Sanders (I-VT), and 22 other original co-sponsors (full list below).
A grassroots coalition led by the PCCC includes Presente.org, UltraViolet, Working Families Party, MoveOn.org, Democracy for America, Daily Kos, and the AFL-CIO. Groups will engage their 14 million plus members nationwide on a petition in support of the resolution at WeWantAPublicOption.com and put in phone calls to Senate offices in support. The PCCC worked behind the scenes with senators and organizations on this strategy to elevate the public option in 2016 and put Democrats on offense when talking about health care.
"We see this as the most significant health care push by Democrats since the passage of Obamacare. This resolution supporting a public option for every American represents a Democratic Party increasingly unified behind a strategy of playing offense on big progressive ideas," said Stephanie Taylor, Progressive Change Campaign Committee co-founder. "Aetna's failed extortion attempt and decision to pull out of 11 states has created new urgency in this moment for making a public option available to every American. With Hillary Clinton actively campaigning on big ideas like a public option, debt-free college, and expanding Social Security benefits, Democrats will earn a mandate in 2016 to govern boldly and progressively in 2017. Bernie Sanders' partnership with Senate leaders and grassroots groups on this push shows increasing Democratic unity around big progressive ideas."
Hillary Clinton called for a public option on May 9 and reaffirmed this support in a big economic speech on August 11. This was echoed by President Obama on July 11, an important signal that Democrats were ready to write the next chapter of health care reform after the Affordable Care Act.
Senator Jeff Merkley (D-OR), who filed the resolution, said: "The Affordable Care Act has already expanded health coverage to millions who were previously uninsured and given countless Americans greater peace of mind. We should build on this success by driving competition and holding insurance companies accountable with a public, Medicare-like option available to every American."
Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY), a member of Democratic leadership, added: "Rather than refighting old political battles and trying to put insurance companies back in charge, Republicans should join Democrats in expanding choice for consumers by supporting a public health insurance option. We need more competition in the insurance markets, not less, and a public option would help reduce costs and provide consumers with more affordable options when it comes to their health insurance."
After laying out the case for the public option, the new Senate resolution states: "Resolved, that the Senate supports efforts to build on the Affordable Care Act by ensuring that, in addition to the coverage options provided by private insurers, every American has access to a public health insurance option which, when established, will strengthen competition, improve affordability for families by reducing premiums and increasing choices, and save American taxpayers billions of dollars."
The PCCC will hold a media call with Sen. Jeff Merkley, Prof. Jacob Hacker (creator of the public option), and others Thursday, 9/15, at 11am ET. To RSVP, email press@boldprogressives.org.
A GBA Strategies poll commissioned by the Progressive Change Institute in January 2015 shows a majority of likely 2016 voters support a public option, 71%-13%, including a majority of Republicans, 62%-22%. Among Hispanic voters, it is popular 64%-23%. Among African American voters, it is popular 86%-6%. Among women voters, it is popular 72%-13%. Among young voters, it is popular 81%-9%.
See statements from progressive grassroots coalition members and more senators below. Also see key Aetna/Clinton/Obama facts below.
Nita Chaudhary, Co-Executive Director, UltraViolet: "Since the implementation of the Affordable Care Act, health insurance companies have prioritized profits and mergers ahead of patients. When it comes to basic women's health care like birth control, insurers have attempted to force women to pay co-pays or denied their claims altogether. This is unacceptable and would not happen if we had a public option that provides a Medicare-like choice to keep health insurance companies honest."
Charles Chamberlain, Executive Director, Democracy For America: "If our leaders are serious about ensuring real competition in the health insurance market and driving down our out-of-control healthcare costs, giving every American the option to buy into a public, Medicare-like health insurance program is a no brainer that every single Democrat should support."
Joan McCarter, Senior Political Writer, Daily Kos: "The public option was a good idea in 2009, and it's a great idea today. It's time to expand the access to health insurance promised in the Affordable Care Act and make that 'affordable' part a reality, giving everyone an alternative to high-deductible, high-cost plans."
Matt Nelson, Executive Director, Presente.org: "While Obamacare has helped millions of Americans gain access to healthcare, nearly 10 million Latinx people remain uninsured. Now, Aetna and other corporate insurers are pulling out of states with high Latinx populations -- putting many in our communities at risk of losing the care they need and deserve. We need a public option that guarantees every American an affordable health care choice -- and to truly increase access such a public option should have a Spanish-language website and adequate services. Healthcare is a public good and should never have been entrusted to corporate insurers alone. A public option could save the lives of Latinxs who are still uninsured, and it would help hold corporate insurers responsible for their actions. We applaud senators for proposing this bold resolution and working with grassroots organizations to put the public option back in the national conversation."
Dan Cantor, National Director, Working Families Party: "Congressional Republicans spent six years trying to destroy Obamacare. They failed, and thanks to Obamacare, fewer people than ever are uninsured. But our health insurance industry still needs reform, especially as corporations like Aetna put profit ahead of all else and pull out of the exchanges. It's time to revive a good idea and pass a public option for every American. All Americans need a quality, affordable health plan, whether big insurers want to play ball or not. Senators Sanders, Merkley, Schumer, Durbin and Murray are right to put it back on the table."
William Samuel, Government Affairs Director, AFL-CIO: "We strongly support this resolution calling for a public health insurance option that will be available to all Americans. A public plan will change the rules of our healthcare system, lowering costs for working people, employers and government, injecting competition into the health insurance market, and helping keep private insurers honest."
The petition by the coalition of groups at WeWantAPublicOption.com states: "We want a public option! All Americans should have the option of health insurance like Medicare that competes with private for-profit insurers. Members of Congress and candidates should embrace it in 2016 so we have momentum and can pass it under the next president."
Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT): "The Affordable Care Act has made great progress in helping millions of people get access to health insurance. But at a time when 29 million people are still uninsured, and 31 million are underinsured, we must continue to make needed health care reforms so that the American people can have health care as a right, not a privilege. Insurance companies have shown they are more concerned with serving their shareholders than their customers. Every American deserves the choice of a public option in health insurance."
Senator Patty Murray (D-WA): "The passage of the Affordable Care Act was an important step toward making healthcare more affordable and accessible, but it shouldn't be the last step we take. "I believe that there should be a public option in our insurance marketplaces to help reduce premiums, compete with the insurance companies so that consumers are put first, and give working families across the country more affordable choices."
Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL): "Ensuring that everybody in America has access to quality affordable healthcare is something that generations of leaders have worked toward. The Affordable Care Act was a massive step toward that goal, but it's critical that we continue to push until we achieve it. A public option would get us there by increasing competition and accountability in the health insurance market and saving taxpayers billions of dollars."
Senator Al Franken (D-MN): "Thanks to the Affordable Care Act, we've cut the rate of uninsured Minnesotans in half, people no longer have to worry about being denied coverage because of a pre-existing condition, and people no longer have to worry about being dropped from their coverage when they get sick. We need to protect these and other important gains we've made, but we must do more to help those who are still struggling to afford coverage. I pushed for a public option during ACA negotiations because I strongly believed then -- as I do now -- that a robust public option is one of the best ways to bring down costs, hold insurance companies accountable, and protect health coverage for Minnesotans. As a member of the Senate Health Committee, I'm going to fight to move the public option forward, and I'll keep working ensure that the Affordable Care Act serves the best interests of Minnesota."
On July 5, Aetna CEO Mark Bertolini threatened to "leave the public exchange business entirely" if the DOJ opposed Aetna's merger with Humana. Two weeks later, the DOJ rejected this mega-merger as bad for competition.
Then, on August 15, Aetna announced it would pull out of 11 state exchanges: Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Kentucky, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Texas. Next year, one-third of ACA healthcare exchanges will be served by a single health insurer and more than half -- 55 percent -- may end up having two or fewer to choose from. Seven entire states are projected to have just one carrier in 2017: Alaska, Alabama, Kansas, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Wyoming.
Hillary Clinton called for a public option on May 9 and reaffirmed this support in a big economic speech on August 11. This was echoed by President Obama on July 11.
The Congressional Budget Office has found that a public health insurance option would save taxpayers $158 billion over 10 years and extend coverage to the nearly 29 million Americans who remain uninsured. Nearly 4 million adults, disproportionately people of color, lack coverage as a result of the decision in 19 states not to expand Medicaid.
In 2010, the PCCC and grassroots allies partnered with Sen. Michael Bennet and others on "The Bennet Letter" calling for passage of the public option through reconciliation -- a process that only requires 51 votes. The letter gained great momentum, and the PCCC aired TV ads showing 51 senators supported the public option.
A GBA Strategies poll commissioned by the Progressive Change Institute in January 2015 shows a majority of likely 2016 voters support a public option, 71%-13%, including a majority of Republicans, 62%-22%. Among Hispanic voters, it is popular 64%-23%. Among African American voters, it is popular 86%-6%. Among women voters, it is popular 72%-13%. Among young voters, it is popular 81%-9%.
|
|
S. Res.
Supporting efforts to increase competition and accountability in the health insurance marketplace, and extend accessible, quality, affordable health care coverage to every American through the choice of a public insurance plan.
In the Senate of the United States, Mr. MERKLEY (for himself, Mr. SCHUMER, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. DURBIN, Mr. SANDERS, Mrs. STABENOW, Mrs. BOXER, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, Mr. FRANKEN, Mr. WHITEHOUSE, Mr. UDALL, Mr. WYDEN, Mr. BROWN, Mrs. GILLIBRAND, Mr. MURPHY, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr. REED, Mr. CARDIN, Mr. BLUMENTHAL, Mr. CASEY, Mr. MARKEY, Mrs. SHAHEEN, Mr. BENNET, Mrs. BALDWIN, Mrs. WARREN, Mr. PETERS and Mr. SCHATZ) submitted the following resolution, which was referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
RESOLUTION
Purpose: Supporting efforts to increase competition and accountability in the health insurance marketplace, and advance the goal of accessible, quality, affordable health care for everyone in America as a basic human right by offering the choice of a public insurance plan.
Whereas under the Affordable Care Act, 20 million Americans have gained health insurance coverage, including 11 million individuals that have coverage on the public exchanges created by the law;
Whereas the uninsured rate is at its lowest point in history; however, there is still more work to be done to provide access to coverage for Americans that remain uninsured and reduce deductibles and out of pocket costs for the 31 million Americans currently underinsured;
Whereas before the Affordable Care Act millions of individuals with pre-existing conditions were denied health coverage by insurance companies that controlled who received care in the United States;
Whereas profound disparities persist in health outcomes based on race, ethnicity, and geography, and nearly four million adults, disproportionately people of color, lack coverage as a result of the failure of 19 states to expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act;
Whereas public insurance options for workers' compensation insurance have resulted in lower rates for small businesses and more competition in several states;
Whereas giving all Americans the choice of a public, nonprofit health insurance option would lead to increased competition, reduced premiums, cut wasteful spending on administration, marketing, and executive pay, and ensure consumers have the affordable choices they deserve;
Whereas establishing a state-based public health insurance plan is possible today through the use of State Innovation Waivers as created by the Affordable Care Act which allow states to promote unique, creative and innovative approaches to implementing meaningful health care reform including a public option;
Whereas public programs like Medicare often deliver care more cost-effectively by limiting administrative overhead and securing better prices from providers;
Whereas the Congressional Budget Office has found that a public health insurance option would save taxpayers billions of dollars;
Resolved, that the Senate supports efforts--
to build on the Affordable Care Act by ensuring that, in addition to the coverage options provided by private insurers, every American has access to a public health insurance option which, when established, will strengthen competition, improve affordability for families by reducing premiums and increasing choices, and save American taxpayers billions of dollars.
The Progressive Change Campaign Committee (BoldProgressives.org) is a million-member grassroots organization building power at the local, state and federal levels. It engages in electoral work and issue advocacy work -- fighting on democracy issues and for economic populist priorities like expanding Social Security, Medicare For All, a Green New Deal, student debt cancellation, and Wall Street reform. PCCC has been a proud supporter of Elizabeth Warren since her first run for Senate and was the first national political organization to endorse her for president in the 2020 election.
"Mifepristone is safe and effective, and women should be able to get abortion medication through the mail or telehealth if they need," said Sen. Patty Murray.
Defenders of reproductive rights, including key Democrats in Congress, reiterated the safety of mifepristone on Monday after the US Supreme Court temporarily extended access to the medication—commonly used in abortion and miscarriage care—by mail while the justices review a ruling from a notoriously right-wing appellate court.
The US Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit blocked a federal rule allowing mifepristone to be dispensed by mail at the beginning of the month. Drugmakers quickly appealed to the high court, where Justice Samuel Alito, who is part of the right-wing supermajority, issued a one-week stay to give himself and colleagues time to review the case.
As Alito's initial Monday evening deadline approached, he extended the stay until 5:00 pm ET on Thursday. The move means that "for now, mifepristone is still available via telehealth, mail order, and pharmacy while the case proceeds," noted the Democratic Women's Caucus in the US House of Representatives.
However, pro-choice advocates and policymakers are still sounding the alarm and arguing that, as the caucus put it in a social media post, "reproductive freedom should not depend on emergency rulings or political attacks."
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said in a statement that "mifepristone has been safe, effective, and trusted for decades. Today's order keeps access in place for now, but it's not cause for celebration—it's a reminder that basic reproductive care is still under attack every day. Anti-abortion extremists are trying to use the courts to roll back access to medication abortion nationwide, and Senate Dems will keep fighting to protect women's freedom to make their own healthcare decisions."
Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) similarly wrote on social media: "Another extension, but this shouldn't be complicated. Mifepristone is safe and effective, and women should be able to get abortion medication through the mail or telehealth if they need. Extremist judges shouldn't get to decide how women get healthcare."
This case traces back to early 2023, when the Biden administration's Food and Drug Administration permanently lifted mifepristone's in-person dispensing requirement, just months after the Supreme Court's right-wing supermajority overturned Roe v. Wade. Louisiana, which has among the most restrictive abortion policies in the country, sued over the FDA's policy change.
Medication abortions account for the majority of abortions provided in the United States, and those patients generally take both mifepristone and another drug, misoprostol. Demand for abortion pills by mail increased after Roe's reversal, as advocates of forced pregnancy policies in Republican-controlled states ramped up attacks on reproductive freedom.
"With the Supreme Court punting a decision on access to mifepristone—a safe, effective medication used in abortion care—until later this week, patients and providers are left facing continued uncertainty," said Rachel Fey, interim co-CEO of Power to Decide. "Wondering day by day whether you'll have access to an essential medication is not practical, and the confusion only deepens the barriers people already face when seeking abortion care."
"Access to mifepristone should be based on scientific evidence, not ideology," Fey declared. "We urge the Supreme Court to follow that science and maintain current telehealth access to mifepristone—not just for a few days at a time, but permanently."
Alito's extensions in recent days are not necessarily signals of where the conservative will ultimately come down. The Associated Press pointed out Monday that "the current dispute is similar to one that reached the court three years ago," when the justices blocked another 5th Circuit ruling "over the dissenting votes of Alito and Justice Clarence Thomas," and then unanimously dismissed that case due to lack of standing, or a legal right to sue.
The battle comes as the Trump administration's FDA is conducting a review of mifepristone that Julia Kaye, senior staff attorney for the ACLU’s Reproductive Freedom Project, has said seems "designed to manufacture an excuse for further restricting medication abortion across the country."
The New York Times noted Monday that US Department of Justice "lawyers have not said in court proceedings or publicly whether they back regulations that allow people to be prescribed the pills through telehealth appointments. Instead, they have asked the lower courts to pause the litigation to give the FDA time to complete a review of the safety of mifepristone, which was first approved in 2000."
"Boy, it's a complete mystery why the public thinks the court is making partisan political decisions," quipped one law professor following the ruling on Alabama's redistricting.
The US Supreme Court's right-wing majority Monday opened the door for Alabama to eliminate a majority-Black congressional district before this year's midterm elections in a decision that came as Tennessee voters sued to stop their state's racially rigged redistricting.
The nation's high court issued a 6-3 order with no explanation allowing Alabama officials to revert to a congressional map which, despite the state population being roughly 26% African American, has just one majority-Black district out of seven. The order came just a week before Alabama's primary election and less than three years after the same court ordered the state to create a second majority-Black district.
In that case, Allen v. Milligan, two right-wing members—Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh—joined their liberal colleagues who sided with Black voters in defense of the Voting Rights Act.
SCOTUS, which ordered Alabama to create a second Black opportunity district just 3 years ago, has lifted that order a week before the primary. The Purcell principle says courts shouldn't permit chaos too close to an election—it's now an open question whether there will even be a primary on schedule.
[image or embed]
— Joyce White Vance (@joycewhitevance.bsky.social) May 11, 2026 at 3:32 PM
Monday's ruling follows last month's Louisiana v. Callais decision, in which the justices ruled 6-3, also along ideological lines, that Louisiana's congressional map is “an unconstitutional racial gerrymander."
The decision ironically voided the last remaining provision of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which allows voters of color to challenge racially discriminatory electoral maps in court.
Dissenting in Monday's decision, liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor noted that the high court previously found that "Alabama violated the 14th Amendment by intentionally diluting the votes of Black voters."
"That constitutional finding of intentional discrimination is independent of, and unaffected by, any of the legal issues discussed in Callais," she added.
Earlier on Monday, the ACLU and ACLU of Tennessee filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of three Black voters, the Black Clergy Collaborative of Memphis, the Memphis A. Philip Randolph Institute, and the Equity Alliance seeking to block the state's racially rigged congressional map approved last week by the state Legislature and signed into law by Republican Gov. Bill Lee despite tremendous opposition from African American Tennesseans and their allies.
The lawsuit argues that the new map violates the Constitution by intentionally discriminating against Black voters in Memphis and retaliates against them for exercising their First Amendment right to political expression and association.
As the ACLU of Tennessee explained:
Tennessee has had a Memphis-based congressional district for the better part of a century. The challenged map dismantles that district, which is the state’s only majority-Black congressional district. It divides Black voters in Memphis and Shelby County across three majority-white districts that stretch from Memphis hundreds of miles into central Tennessee, diluting Black Memphians’ votes and stripping those communities of any meaningful voice in Congress...
A white-controlled supermajority of the Tennessee General Assembly enacted the new map targeting Black Memphians over mere days in a special legislative session that had been called after the candidate-qualifying deadline had already run.
"Black voters in Memphis did exactly what the Constitution empowers every American to do, which is to choose their representative,” ACLU of Tennessee executive director Miriar Nemeth said in a statement. “The Legislature’s response was an effort to ensure that those votes never carry the same weight again. The law has a name for this, and it’s not redistricting, it is textbook First Amendment retaliation. And it is, at its heart, racism.”
The Tennessee branch of the NAACP, state Democratic Party, Democratic candidates, and voters have also sued to challenge the redistricting.
The current partisan redistricting war began when President Donald Trump and congressional Republicans, who fear losing control of Congress after November's midterms, pushed Texas to enact a mid-decade redistricting. California retaliated with its own voter-approved redraw, and numerous red and blue states have followed suit or announced plans to at least consider doing so.
On Monday, Virginia's Democratic attorney general and party legislative leaders asked the US Supreme Court to block a state high court ruling against a voter-approved redistricting that favors Democrats.
Last week, Roberts dismissed the increasingly prevalent public perception that Supreme Court justices are "political actors."
Chief Justice Roberts bemoans the public's view of the Justices as political actors ...and then offers no explanation at all as the Court sprints to vacate a finding of INTENTIONAL discrimination, interfering with an impending election to let Alabama Rs sneak in a touch more partisan gerrymander.
[image or embed]
— Justin Levitt (@justinlevitt.bsky.social) May 11, 2026 at 3:21 PM
Following Monday's ruling, Loyola Law School professor Justin Levitt said sardonically on Bluesky, "Boy, it's a complete mystery why the public thinks the court is making partisan political decisions."
"The irreparable harm resulting from the Supreme Court of Virginia's decision is profound and immediate," top state Democrats said of the decision that struck down the new districts.
Virginia Attorney General Jay Jones and Democratic leaders in the state General Assembly on Monday asked the US Supreme Court to block a ruling against a ballot measure establishing new voter-approved congressional districts that favored Democrats.
The Virginia Supreme Court on Friday delivered a blow to the Democratic battle against President Donald Trump's gerrymandering campaign when it struck down a political map that Virginians had narrowly backed last month. The new districts could help Democrats secure up to four seats in the US House of Representatives in the November midterm elections.
Jones, Speaker of the Virginia House of Delegates Don Scott (D-88), state Senate Majority Leader Scott Surovell (D-34), and Senate President Pro Tempore L. Louise Lucas (D-18) are seeking a stay, arguing that based on a "novel and manifestly atextual interpretation" of the Virginia Constitution, the state Supreme Court "overrode the will of the people who ratified the amendment by ordering the commonwealth to conduct its election with the congressional districts that the people rejected."
"A stay is warranted because the decision by the Supreme Court of Virginia is deeply mistaken on two critical issues of federal law with profound practical importance to the nation. The decision below violates federal law in two separate ways," the emergency application says. "First, it predicated its interpretation of the Virginia Constitution on a grave misreading of federal law, which expressly fixes a single day for the 'election' of representatives and delegates to Congress."
"Second, by rejecting the plain text of the Virginia Constitution's definition of the term 'election' to adopt its own contrary meaning, the Supreme Court of Virginia 'transgressed the ordinary bounds of judicial review such that it arrogated to itself the power vested in the state legislature to regulate federal elections,'" the application continues.
The filing also stresses that "the irreparable harm resulting from the Supreme Court of Virginia's decision is profound and immediate. By forcing the commonwealth to conduct its congressional elections using districts different from those adopted by the General Assembly pursuant to a constitutional amendment the people just ratified, the Supreme Court of Virginia has deprived voters, candidates, and the commonwealth of their right to the lawfully enacted congressional districts."
The Associated Press noted that "Democrats are taking a legal long shot in asking the justices to reverse the Virginia ruling. The Supreme Court tries to avoid second-guessing state courts’ interpretations of their own constitutions. In 2023, it turned down a request by North Carolina Republicans to overrule a state Supreme Court decision that blocked the GOP's congressional map."
The high court also has a right-wing supermajority that includes three Trump appointees—and which gutted the remnants of the Voting Rights Act in a ruling related to Louisiana's congressional districts late last month.
Under current conditions, Republicans are expected to pick up seats in Florida, Missouri, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas due to redistricting demanded by Trump, while Democrats are expected to win more districts in California, where voters also approved new political lines benefiting them.
The Washington Post reported Monday that "some top Democrats express little hope that the appeal will affect this November's congressional midterms and are pivoting to waging campaigns in the state's existing districts."
According to the newspaper:
Surovell (D-Fairfax) said "the practical realities of our election calendar" will prevent candidates from running in new maps even if conservative justices on the US Supreme Court were open to helping Virginia Democrats.
Tuesday is the deadline set by state elections officials for putting the ballot mechanisms in place. Surovell noted that Virginia’s elections software is antiquated and overdue for replacement.
Instead, Democrats are making the case that it’s time to work with the cards they have in hand.
"Since we can't control anything other than mobilizing and organizing, then let's mobilize and organize and turn our anger into fuel for that," Rep. Jennifer McClellan (D-Va.) said.
In a Monday letter to fellow congressional Democrats, US House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (NY) called out the "vicious Republican assault on the right to vote, free and fair elections, and Black political representation in the South," and pledged that "our effort to forcefully push back against the Republican redistricting scheme will not slow down."
Jeffries also announced a caucus-wide briefing planned for Thursday "to discuss the steps Democrats are taking to advance the largest voter protection effort in modern American history," and declared that "Democrats will take control of the House of Representatives in November."