POLL: Two years, out, Vance remains clear frontrunner for 2028 GOP primary

(The Center Square) – The Census Bureau is planning for 2030, making decisions that will shape the distribution of federal funding that topped $2.8 trillion in fiscal year 2021, even as lawsuits over the 2020 Census remain unresolved.

The decisions being made now will determine how hundreds of millions of Americans are represented in Congress, how legislative districts are drawn in every state for the next decade, and how much federal funding flows to programs like Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, formerly known as food stamps.

The bureau's 2030 planning and a federal lawsuit both center on the same question: how to protect the privacy of census respondents without distorting the population data that determines representation and funding.

America First Legal, a nonprofit law firm co-founded by Stephen Miller, now serving as President Donald Trump's Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy, filed the suit in September 2025 in federal court in Tampa, Florida.

The group alleged that the Census Bureau's use of two statistical methods, differential privacy and group quarters imputation, unconstitutionally manipulated population data and cost Florida two congressional seats.

Differential privacy is a statistical technique that adds small amounts of random noise to census data before publication, making it harder to identify individual respondents. The Census Bureau adopted it for the 2020 Census to protect the confidentiality of people who filled out census forms, replacing an older method called data swapping.

A three-judge federal panel dismissed the lawsuit in February as time-barred, ruling that the plaintiffs waited too long to sue. The court also rejected the standing theory of Rep. Byron Donalds, R-Fla., who had joined the case as a plaintiff.

The case drew intervenors opposing AFL, including the Alliance for Retired Americans and two University of Central Florida students. The alliance's members include nursing home residents counted through group quarters imputation. The students lived in campus housing subject to the same method.

AFL had celebrated the case's progress. In November 2025, the organization called its summary judgment filing "a critical step forward" that brought the case "one step closer to restoring integrity" to the census. A December news release said the case was "paving the way for the Court to decide the case in early 2026." When the court ruled in early 2026, it dismissed the case entirely.

When plaintiffs refiled, they dropped the differential privacy challenge entirely, the method that had been the focus of AFL's public statements about the case. The revised complaint focuses on statistical imputation, a technique the Census Bureau uses to fill in missing population data by adding people who could not otherwise be counted.

The government argues that because imputation adds people to the count, it cannot cause the undercount at the heart of plaintiffs' claims.

The group alleged the methods cost Florida two congressional seats. But according to court filings, group quarters imputation added 16,500 people to Florida's population count. Cory McCartan, a statistician at Penn State University who analyzed the data for the court on behalf of the intervenor-defendants opposing AFL, found that removing all of them would not have changed congressional apportionment in any state.

"The number of seats awarded to each state was not affected by differential privacy," McCartan told The Center Square, "so there was no impact on state-level congressional representation."

Researchers have confirmed that differential privacy did introduce real accuracy problems at the census block level, the smallest geographic unit used for redistricting. McCartan found that drawing districts at a granular level using racial data can magnify those errors, though he said other sources of census error remain larger at the district level.

Steven Ruggles, a demographer at the University of Minnesota who has studied census methodology for decades, said the Census Bureau injected so little noise into the 2020 data that they were "virtually unaffected" by differential privacy.

Ruggles told The Center Square the Census Bureau overstated the privacy threat that justified adopting differential privacy. The claim that the old data swapping method left respondents vulnerable to reidentification was "laughably exaggerated," he said.

Ruggles rejected AFL's imputation argument.

"If the Republicans succeeded in getting rid of it, that would disproportionately undercount places with high census nonresponse rates, particularly the South and rural areas, so it seems like this would backfire on them," he told The Center Square.

AFL and its allies argued that differential privacy systematically favored urban, Democratic-leaning areas at the expense of rural communities.

An analysis published in November 2025 by the National Conference of State Legislatures, an organization that represents state legislatures, found that differential privacy noise tends to increase rural population counts and decrease urban ones.

Critics have blamed the Biden administration for adopting differential privacy. The Census Bureau formally announced its decision to use the method in December 2018, during the first Trump administration.

Benjamin Osborne, a legal fellow at the Center for Renewing America, a nonprofit policy organization founded by Russ Vought, now serving as director of the Office of Management and Budget, wrote in April that the census had "defrauded" the American people through differential privacy.

"The government took real communities and replaced them with statistical fiction," he wrote. "And then it told states to draw political maps based on that fiction."

The bureau is already planning for 2030. Its operational plan, approved in July 2025, calls for researching improvements and alternatives to the disclosure avoidance methods used in 2020. A final design will be tested in a 2028 dress rehearsal before peak production begins in 2029.

The plan also lists modernized enumeration of people living in group quarters, the same method at the center of the federal lawsuit, as a key improvement for 2030.

Ruggles said the methodology decisions being made now will have consequences beyond the privacy debate. In a March 2025 paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, he said the Census Bureau's ongoing efforts to replace the American Community Survey, the bureau's annual demographic survey, with fully synthetic data pose a bigger threat to data quality than anything differential privacy introduced.

AFL has continued to press the case, filing a motion in May seeking production of internal Census Bureau records by June 15.

The Census Bureau did not respond to requests for comment despite being contacted multiple times over three weeks. The bureau initially said it was working on a response, then asked for additional time on multiple occasions before missing a final deadline of 5 p.m. Eastern on June 11.

AFL and Rep. Donalds also did not respond to requests for comment.

AFL's federal case remains active, with two motions to dismiss and a motion to modify the court's scheduling order awaiting rulings from the three-judge panel.

(The Center Square) – While former Vice President and presidential hopeful Kamala Harris remains the Democratic frontrunner for 2028, according to new polling, her support, and that for California Gov. Gavin Newsom, may be shifting to other members of the Democratic Party. 

In the latest The Center Square Voters’ Voice Poll conducted from June 4-6 among registered voters who identify as Democrats and left-leaning Independents, Harris maintained a strong lead, capturing the support of 27% of the 1,224 polled. Newsom was a distant second among the names listed, with 14% support.

But both Harris and Newsom have slipped from where they landed in October and March Voters’ Voice Polls. Harris was at 33% in the fall, 31% in March and is now at 27%; Newsom had 21% in the fall, then 16% in March, and now, 14%. 

Support for former Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg broke into the double digits for the first time, jumping 4 points from the 7% he held in both of the earlier polls. New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez lost a couple points in March but regained them to finish with 8% support.

Seventeen percent of voters surveyed indicated they were unsure who they would vote for in the 2028 primary – the same amount of uncertainty among Republicans and right-leaning independents polled in the GOP primary.

Harris performed best among Black and young voters: 49% of Black voters polled said they would vote for Harris in 2028, and 48% of voters ages 18-29. 

Among voters grouped by education level, Harris drew the most support from those without a college education, at 35%. And though whites supported her the least of any racial group, she still led all the other candidates there, with 17%, followed by Newsom and Buttigieg at 16% and 15%, respectively.

Harris topped every demographic category except two: voters 65 and older and respondents with postgraduate degrees. Among seniors, Newsom led with 23% support, followed by Buttigieg at 15%, while Harris received 11% support. Postgraduates also favored Newsom, who edged Harris 19% to 18%, with Buttigieg close behind at 16%.

Arizona Sen. Mark Kelly and Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro performed best among those remaining, capturing a combined 9% of respondents. Other names polled were the Illinois and Maryland governors, J.B. Pritzker and Wes Moore, Democratic senators from New Jersey, Kentucky, Minnesota, and Connecticut — Cory Booker, Andy Beshear, Amy Klobuchar, Chris Murphy – and California Rep. Ro Khanna. 

The poll was conducted nationally by Noble Predictive Insights using an opt-in online panel and text-to-web cell phone messages to survey registered voters. The sample consisted of 1,013 Democrats and 211 left-leaning Independents. It is among the most comprehensive tracking polls in the country.

(The Center Square) – Bipartisan legislation meant to speed up first-time union contracts would promote efficiency but also erode both employee and employer rights, a labor policy group argues.

The Faster Labor Contracts Act, championed by congressional Democrats and supported by 20 House Republicans, mandates government intervention if a first-time union contract is not agreed upon within 120 days.

Ultimately, once time runs out, the business and union would be forced to accept a collective bargaining agreement written by a government panel, rather than directly negotiated by the employer and employees.

Institute for the American Worker President Vinnie Vernuccio called the House-passed bill an example of “gross government overreach.”

“There are better ways out there, things that increase collaboration, increase penalties even, to get people to negotiate,” Vernuccio told The Center Square. “Those are far preferable than government forced arbitration.”

Supporters of the Faster Labor Contracts Act – including the AFL-CIO, the largest federation of unions in the U.S., and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters – say it will ensure employers come to the negotiating table quickly instead of dragging out the process.

The bill would require employers to begin contract negotiations within 10 days of a union’s formation, then allow for up to 90 days of bargaining before the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service steps in.

Once that happens, the employer and union have only 30 more days to reach an agreement before a government imposed three-person arbitration panel takes over.

The panel, consisting of one union representative, one employer representative and one neutral member, would then write the entire two-year contract without directly engaging with either the employer or the union.

Vernuccio and other opponents of the bill, including conservative political advocacy group Americans for Prosperity, argue that the mandated government arbitration panel would disenfranchise, rather than empower, both workers and businesses.

“It harms workers by preventing them from being able to have a vote on a contract. This is government-imposed arbitration that would lead to contracts covering everything — their wages, their working conditions, their benefits — and workers wouldn't have a say in the contract [while] being forced to pay the union,” Vernuccio said.

“From the employer perspective, you have these government-mandated arbitrators that may not know the business, may not know the intricacies of what it needs or what it has to do to survive,” he added. “And [the panel] will simply base a contract off of other unionized company contracts, which may not be anywhere near the same as what the newly unionized company faces.”

A union contract written by a third party not only could ignore the needs of the particular workers and business involved, but could also trigger future legal disputes, depending on what the panel decides to include.

“There's nothing in the bill that limits it to just wages or just working conditions,” Vernuccio noted. “If other companies have negotiated DEI, if they have things that, let's say, a Christian employer would not want, or if they have things saying you have to support divestment from Israel, there's nothing preventing those clauses from being forced upon both workers and job creators.”

Although the Faster Labor Contracts Act easily passed the U.S. House, its becoming law is far from imminent. The bill must clear the 60-vote threshold in the Senate, and fewer Republican senators appear supportive of the bill compared to their House colleagues.

The Senate also currently faces a backlog of critical bipartisan legislation, including long-awaited bills supporting federal highway infrastructure and American farmers.

The upper chamber is also wrestling with the House over certain portions of a massive bill to boost housing supply, which President Donald Trump has publicly urged Congress to pass as soon as possible.

(The Center Square) – As Americans commemorate the 250th anniversary of American independence, presidential pets are being celebrated as well. 

“Dogs, cats, horses, cows – as well as far more unusual animals – have called the White House and its grounds home over the last two centuries,” the Library of Congress explains. It’s compiled photos highlighting “the menagerie of animals” that have had the privilege of being a presidential pet.

The White House has been home to more than 275 pets, the George W. Bush Library says, highlighting favorite pets. 

America’s first president, George Washington, loved dogs and was an avid fox hunter, which led him to develop the American foxhound breed. His war horse was named Nelson.

John Adams, the second president, was the first president to live in the White House. He built the White House stables and his dogs, Satan and Juno, were the first family pets to run on the White House lawn.

His son, John Quincy Adams, the sixth president, kept a pet alligator in the White House bathtub, a gift from the Marquis de Lafayette. 

Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence and third president, was sent two grizzly bear cubs from explorer Zebulon Pike. They were kept for a short time in a cage at the White House. He also loved mockingbirds and dogs, having many as pets. Grover Cleveland, the 22nd president, also had a pet mockingbird.

James Madison’s wife, Dolley, had a famous pet parrot, Polly. Dolley and Polly survived the War of 1812, both safely evacuating the White House as British troops advanced. Madison, the fourth president, authored the Bill of Rights. William McKinley, the 25th president, also had a pet parrot named Washington Post.

Martin Van Buren, the eighth president, was gifted a pair of tiger cubs from the Sultan of Oman, which were kept in a zoo, not the White House. 

President William Henry Harrison, the ninth president and grandfather of President Benjamin Harrison, had a pet cow, goat and dog at the White House. Benjamin Harrison, the 23rd president, had a famous pet goat, Old Whiskers, who pulled his grandchildren in a cart. He also had pet possums, Mr. Reciprocity and Mr. Protection, and a dog.

President Herbert Hoover, the 31st president, also had a pet possum, Billy Possum, which was kept in a pen that had been built for the Coolidge family’s pet raccoon, Rebecca. While President Calvin Coolidge, the 30th president, and his family lived in the White House, Rebecca was often featured in the news and made an appearance during a 1927 Easter Egg Roll. Coolidge also had pet canaries, a goose named Enoch, and his favorite dog, Rob Roy.

Teddy Roosevelt, the 26th president, effectively had a zoo at the White House and the most animals of any president. His family pets included a small bear named Jonathan Edwards, multiple dogs, multiple guinea pigs, a badger, pig, blue macaw, hen, one-legged rooster, hyena, barn owl, rabbit, lizard, pony and horses. Their pet snake was named Emily Spinach.

The Kennedy family also had many animals at the White House, including hamsters, a cat and canary, parakeets, several dogs and ponies. John F. Kennedy, the 35th president, was one of four U.S. presidents who have been assassinated.

The 16th president, Abraham Lincoln, who was also assassinated, is believed to have popularized the name Fido, now a common name for dogs. The Lincoln's beloved dog remained with neighbors in Illinois after Lincoln was elected president and the family moved to Washington, D.C. The Lincolns had many pets, including Lincoln's horse, "Old Bob," which he road long distances to circuit courts. Mrs. Lincoln referred to cats as his "hobby." Lincoln is considered one of the most popular presidents, according to multiple polls, for holding the country together during the tumultuous years of the Civil War. The leader of the new Republican Party, Lincoln played a major role in ending slavery and authored the Emancipation Proclamation. 

President William Howard Taft, the 27th president, had a famous pet, a 1,500-pound Holstien from Wisconsin, Pauline Wayne, whose milk and cream were used at the White House. She was the last cow to graze on the White House and other federal agency lawns. 

During World War I, President Woodrow Wilson, the 28th president, had a herd of several dozen sheep and a ram, named Old Ike. They maintained the lawn to save money and their wool was sold, including nearly $53,000 in 1919 to raise funds for the Red Cross. 

During the Great Depression, Franklin D. Roosevelt, the 32nd president, was known for having many pets at the White House, including his famous dog, King Tut.

During World War II, President Harry Truman, the 33rd president, had a pet goat, Dewey’s Goat, and famous dog, Feller. World War II hero Dwight Eisenhower, the 34th president, also had a pet parakeet and dog.

Most presidents and their families have had dogs, including the Fords, Nixons, Johnsons, Carters, Reagans, Bushes, Obamas and Bidens. 

President Warren Harding’s dog, Laddie Boy, was regularly featured by news reporters. Harding, the 29th president, was the first administration to have a cabinet member be imprisoned for crimes committed while in office during the Teapot Dome Scandal.

President George H.W. Bush’s dog had puppies at the White House, including Spot, the only dog to live at the White House during two administrations. Spot lived at the White House when his son, George W. Bush, was president. 

Only three presidents haven’t had pets at the White House: James Polk, Andrew Johnson and Donald Trump, according to White House records.

Most Americans (62%) own a pet; nearly one-third (35%) have more than one. Nearly all U.S. pet owners (97%) say their pets are part of their family, according to a Pew Research Center survey.

(The Center Square) – Several high profile cases on gun rights and immigration policy have yet to be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court as the court's current term is set to end by July.

The high court has more than 20 cases it has yet to issue rulings on before the end of the term.

Gun rights issues in state legislatures across the country have taken a front seat along with the Trump administration’s immigration policies. Here is a look into some of those cases.

Gun Rights

Hawaii Gun Restrictions

In January, the high court heard arguments in Wolford v. Lopez, a case to determine whether the Hawaii legislature can restrict concealed carry permit holders from bringing a firearm to restaurants, bars, gas stations and other private property without the owner’s permission.

The case challenges precedent set by the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, where the justices struck down a New York state law requiring conceal-carry holders to display the need to defend themselves.

“The Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home,” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in the court’s 2022 decision.

Thomas further elaborated that gun restrictions should only be upheld if they are consistent with the “historical tradition” of the United States.

Lawyers for the state of Hawaii argued that the Second Amendment, at the time of the nation’s founding, did not include the right to enter private property with a weapon.

“The Founders recognized a property owner’s right to exclude,” the lawyers wrote. “Accordingly, at the Founding, a person had no right to enter private property with a gun unless he had the owner's express consent or an implied license based on local law or custom.”

Lawyers for conceal-carry gun owners in Hawaii argued Lopez relied on faulty evidence to assert other laws were similar to the state’s ban. They argued certain public spaces, like beaches and public parks, would not be considered in the original bans, which fundamentally alters the state’s argument.

“Under that approach, ‘the original understanding of the Second Amendment,’” the lawyers wrote, referencing a lower court judge’s opinion, “‘would not apply to any new types of public spaces that would develop in the future.’”

Drug User Gun Possession

Justices on the court also will decide whether regular drug users, including of marijuana, can possess firearms in U.S. v. Hemani.

The case focuses on Ali Hemani, a Texas man who was charged with a felony after FBI agents found a pistol, marijuana and cocaine in his home after obtaining a search warrant. Federal law bars a person who “is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance” from possessing a firearm.

“An individual’s Second Amendment rights are not restricted until a judge makes a finding of a credible safety threat to the safety of others,” lawyers for Hemani wrote in a brief to the court.

Justices on the high court appeared to favor Hemani’s arguments. Justice Amy Coney Barrett questioned how to determine whether a regular drug user is dangerous and could be barred from possessing a firearm. She asked whether a prescription drug like Ambien would be considered under the ban.

Lawyers for the Trump administration said the law could only temporarily disarm individuals who possess schedule I or schedule II drugs. This would include marijuana, heroin, fentanyl and morphine.

“By disqualifying only habitual users of illegal drugs from possessing firearms, the statute imposes a limited, inherently temporary restriction – one which the individual can remove at any time simply by ceasing his unlawful drug use,” Trump administration lawyers wrote.

Immigration

Temporary Protected Status

Justices on the high court also decided to hear two cases regarding temporary protected status for immigrants from Haiti and Syria living in the United States.

Trump v. Miot and Mullin v. Doe challenge temporary protected status for immigrants from Haiti and Syria, respectively. The special immigration status is provided for immigrants from countries that have experienced a war or natural disaster.

The Trump administration eliminated the protected status for both countries in 2025. However, lawyers for the Haitian and Syrian immigrants said the Trump administration did not properly consult other executive agencies or issue a notice before former Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem terminated the status.

Solicitor General John Sauer argued that ending temporary protected status for Syrian and Haitian immigrants would project messages of confidence in the political systems of both countries. He pointed to the end of the civil war in Syria in 2024 as an example.

“If we don’t terminate TPS, it will send a sense of doubt about that decision,” Sauer said before the high court in April.

Asylum Processes

The high court is also tackling the issue of at what point an individual arrives in the United States they can claim asylum protections.

The case, Mullin v. Al Otro Lado, focuses on a dispute between the Trump administration and an immigration advocacy group. The advocacy group argued that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security instituted a policy to prevent migrants from attempting to cross the U.S.-Mexico border.

In a brief to the court, lawyers for the immigration advocates said border patrol officers standing on the U.S. side of the border “identified asylum seekers, and prevented them from stepping onto U.S. soil.”

The 1990 Immigration and Nationality Act allows an individual who “arrives in the United States” to apply for asylum status and be inspected by an immigration officer.

The case hinges on the definition of the term “arrives.” Lawyers for the Trump administration argue standing on the Mexico side of the U.S.-Mexico border is not sufficient to determine arrival.

Kelsi Cockran, a lawyer representing Al Otro Lado, said the determination of arrival is made once an individual is “at the threshold” of a port of entry “about to step over.”

Vivek Suri, a lawyer representing the Trump administration, argued the administration’s “metering” policy is designed to control the flow of individuals at ports of entry.

“Metering is not saying you can never enter the U.S. and the only option is to enter illegally,” Suri said. “The U.S. has greater responsibilities to those in the U.S. than those in Mexico."

These cases and many more, including Trump's desired change to end granting birthright citizenship to individuals born in the U.S. to noncitizen parents who are in the country illegally, will be decided in the coming weeks as justices prepare to wrap up the term.

GREAT FALLS, Mont. - Sunny days in Great Falls mean more great things around Great Falls!

Downtown Summer Jam kicks off on Wednesday, June 17 with Matt Schuster.

An outdoor stage will take over the corner of 5th & Central in downtown Great to feature summer jams! Sons of Habit will perform on July 15, with Hayden Blount slated for August 12.

The 38th Annual Lewis & Clark Festival starts Friday, June 19 at 6 pm.

Check out the festival on Saturday as well for swivel gun, Grammy award winning Black Lodge Singers, hands-on displays, theater talks, food trucks, Native cultural performances and more.

Watch as historical Great Falls figures "come to life" with Waling the Dead on Sunday, June 21. 

Head to Highland Cemetery to hear from Charlie and Nancy Russell, Paris Gibson, George Montogemery, and more! Tickets available at Kaufman’s at 415 Central Ave in downtown Great Falls for $20 to ride or $15 to walk. 

(The Center Square) – Two years out from the 2028 presidential primary season, Vice President JD Vance remains the clear frontrunner for the 2028 Republican presidential primary, the top choice for 36% of Republicans and right-leaning Independents surveyed in the latest The Center Square Voters’ Voice Poll. 

The former U.S. senator from Ohio has maintained a substantial lead, securing roughly twice as much support as the next top contender in both this most recent poll and The Center Square's previous poll conduct in March. In this case, Marco Rubio was voters’ next choice among those presented with 17% of participants, followed by Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis at a distant 7%. 

Seventeen percent of voters indicated they were unsure of who they would support in 2028.

Rubio and DeSantis both enjoyed an uptick this time, likely due at least in part to the absence of Donald Trump Jr.’s name from the list of possible candidates. The president’s eldest son had been listed on previous polls and was twice the second pick behind Vance. In October, he polled at 25% to Vance’s 38% – the closest anyone has come to challenging the vice president. In March, some of that enthusiasm transferred to Rubio, who went from just 5% in October to 9%. Trump Jr. secured 19% support to Vance’s 36% in March. 

The Center Square chose not to include Trump Jr. in its June poll because he recently said in a post on X that he had “zero interest” in running for office in 2028 “or any time soon” but that he’ll “never 100% rule it out down the line.”

“For this wave, we wanted the hypothetical Republican field to be more focused on candidates who seem more plausible as active contenders at this stage,” said Noble Predictive Insights founder Mike Noble.

Vance performed better among younger voters than any other single demographic. Forty-three percent of 18-29-year-olds polled rallied behind Vance. The only other demographics he reached the 40s in were people who voted for President Donald Trump in the last election and the Northeast region of the country.

He polled better than all of the other names provided with both surveyed partisan groups – Republicans, Independents that lean Republican – and saw strong support across groups with varying levels of education and income. He was also the favored candidate by each racial group, though he performed worst among Black respondents, capturing 21% support. Rubio received support from 14% of Black voters and DeSantis got 10%.

Rubio performed markedly better among male respondents than females, with 21% and 14%, respectively. Of the age groups, he polled best with those 65 and older at 26% and worst with the 18-29-year-old segment, supported by just 3% of the demographic. He also performed better with Independents with a right lean than he did with those identifying as Republican. He captured 17% of Republicans support but 20% of Independents', compared to Vance’s 26%.

Among those with differing levels of education, Rubio performed best among those with at least some college under their belt, particularly with those who had some post-graduate schooling, capturing 22% support. He won the most support from Hispanics and Latinos as a racial group with 24% to Vance’s 37%. 

Rubio also performed best among the Northeast at 20% compared to the West and South, at 16% and 18%, respectively. DeSantis captured 9% support among southern respondents compared to 6% in the West and 4% in the Northeast.

Other names polled included multiple former presidential candidates – Texas U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, South Carolina U.S. Sen. Tim Scott, former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley, and GOP candidate for governor in Ohio Vivek Ramaswamy – and former and current state governors, members of Congress and administration officials.

The poll was conducted nationally by Noble Predictive Insights from June 1-4, 2026, using an opt-in online panel and text-to-web cell phone messages to survey registered voters. The sample consisted of 915 Republicans and 149 right-leaning Independents. It is among the most comprehensive polls in the country.

(The Center Square) – Multiple events are being held in the nation’s capital on July 4 celebrating the 250th anniversary of the United States. Not everyone will be able to travel there or view founding documents on display at the National Archives and national museums.  

In an effort to bring Independence celebrations nationwide, the National Archives is transporting founding documents to major museums nationwide through the Freedom Plane National Archives Tour.  

The traveling exhibit is transporting nine original founding documents to eight U.S. cities.  

“While America looks different than it did 250 years ago, the principles enshrined in these documents still guide our lives and continue to shape our country,” the National Archives states. “To preserve our American history for another 250 years,” it’s bringing the exhibition to the American people to celebrate the U.S. Semiquincentennial, it says.

Inspired by the Bicentennial Freedom Train, which brought historic documents to Americans in 48 states from 1975 to 1976, this year’s exhibit is being transported by a Boeing 737.

The first stop was Kansas City, Missouri, where Americans stood in lines for several hours waiting to see the documents. The second was Atlanta, where lines reached as long as six hours, staff at the Houston Museum of Natural Science told The Center Square. The third stop was Los Angeles; the fourth was Houston, where lines averaged roughly one hour. For weeks, 2,000 tickets were sold out at the HMNS every day. It was the only location in the southwest for Americans to view the documents. 

The exhibit is currently on display at the History Colorado Center in Denver through June 14. The next stop is the Museum of Miami, where the documents will be on display from June 20 through July 5. Floridians will have the opportunity to celebrate Independence Day observing key founding documents. 

The final stops will be at the Henry Ford Museum of American Innovation in Dearborn, Michigan, from July 9 through July 26, and the Museum of History and Industry in Seattle from July 30 through August 16. 

The nine original, historic documents from the National Archives – traveling together for the first time in history – include:

Articles of Association, 1774

In September 1774, the leaders of the 13 colonies met in Philadelphia to address their grievances with the British government. On Oct. 20, 1774, the First Continental Congress adopted the Articles of Association, “a nonimportation, nonexportation, and nonconsumption agreement between the colonies urging all colonists to boycott British goods,” the National Archives explains. It’s the first documented coordinated U.S. policy statement. On display is the document, which shows 53 signatures. 

Oaths of Allegiance signed by George Washington, Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr

During the harsh winter of 1777-1778 when troops led by George Washington were encamped at Valley Forge, Penn., and near death, the Continental Congress instructed all Continental Army officers to swear an Oath of Allegiance. They pledged allegiance to “the United States of America, to be Free, Independent and Sovereign States, and declare that the people thereof owe no allegiance or obedience to George the Third, King of Great Britain.” 

The oaths were signed and witnessed. Approximately 1,200 are preserved at the National Archives. On display are those signed by Washington, Hamilton and Burr.

Treaty of Paris, 1783

After eight years of war, the American colonists defeated the British Army and ended British rule in the United States forever. The leaders of the new United States of America and Great Britain signed the Treaty of Paris on Sept. 3, 1783, formally recognizing the United States as an independent nation. 

The treaty was negotiated by Americans John Adams, Benjamin Franklin and John Jay. The treaty also delineated U.S. land boundaries, allowing for U.S. westward expansion. 

The last page is on display, bearing the signatures of the American negotiators and the signature of David Hartley, representing Great Britain.

David Brearley’s Secret Printing of the U.S. Constitution, 1787

In 1787, a Constitutional Convention was called to address challenges the nation was facing. Delegates met at Independence Hall in Philadelphia and replaced the Articles of Confederation with a new system of government established by the U.S. Constitution. 

They were given two printings of a draft that would become the U.S. Constitution. The document on display belonged to New Jersey delegate David Brearley Jr., which bears his handwritten notes.  

Document of votes of state delegates approving the U.S. Constitution, 1787

For four months, convention delegates discussed what they thought their new government should look like. “Their debates, arguments, and resolutions are reflected in the convention’s voting records,” the National Archives explains. The page on display is the text of the final vote for the final text of the U.S. Constitution.  

The document was ratified because congress couldn’t reach a quorum. Only 11 of 13 states voted because Rhode Island didn’t send delegates and two of New York’s three delegates left by the time of the vote, the National Archives notes.  

The U.S. Constitution was ratified on June 21, 1788, and went into effect March 4, 1789.

U.S. Senate markup of the Bill of Rights, 1789

After the Constitution was ratified by the states, U.S. Rep. James Madison, who would later become the fourth president, proposed a series of amendments, which he authored. 

The document on display is the U.S. Senate’s “markup” of what became the Bill of Rights. On Sept. 25, 1789, Congress passed 12 amendments. They were sent to the states for approval. Two years later, only 10 were ratified: Articles 3 through 12.

William Stone engraving of the Declaration of Independence, 1823

Decades after the Declaration of Independence was signed, Secretary of State John Quincy Adams, who would later become the sixth president, commissioned engraver William J. Stone to make an exact replica of the document. Roughly 200 copies were produced by 1823. Less than 50 are known to still exist, including the one on exhibit on loan from David M. Rubenstein.

Former Mizzou men's basketball guard Jayden Stone signed a one-year contract with the Sydney Kings on Friday, per the team's X account.

Originally from Perth, Australia, Stone will return to his home country to begin his professional career in the National Basketball League.

Stone spent two years at Grand Canyon and two at Detroit Mercy before transferring to the Tigers for the 2025-26 season. The guard averaged 13.5 points, 5.1 rebounds and 1.9 assists per game on nearly 49% shooting from the field and 38.5% from 3-point range. 

In Mizzou's NCAA Tournament loss to Miami, Stone put up 21 points and six rebounds on 6-of-10 shooting.

The Kings are headlined by last season's MVP runner-up Kendric Davis, 2023 NBL MVP Xavier Cooks and former NBA champion Matthew Dellavedova. 

(The Center Square) – Five months out from the 2026 midterm elections, Republicans’ chances of maintaining control of Congress appear grim, new polling shows.

The Center Square’s newest Voters’ Voice Poll revealed that 47% of U.S. registered voters surveyed would vote for a Democratic candidate if elections were held today, while only 41% would vote for a Republican. Nine percent of voters haven’t made up their minds yet.

The poll was conducted by Noble Predictive Insights from June 1-4, 2026, surveying 2,585 registered U.S. voters. The sample was comprised of 915 Republicans, 1013 Democrats, and 297 True Independents, the latter of whom chose neither major party when asked about their political leanings.

Democrats’ lead has widened by five percentage points since the Voters’ Voice Poll in March, when support for Democratic versus Republican congressional candidates was split 44%-43%.

“Democrats are widening their lead on the congressional generic ballot because they're not the party in power – I’m not saying the Democrats are doing spectacular here, and they’re really not, it’s really that people are just so dissatisfied, and there's really not another option,” Mike Noble, founder and CEO of Noble Predictive Insights, told The Center Square.

While the leanings of members in either of the two major political parties remain relatively stable, swing voters’ choices pose a growing threat to Republicans. A dismal 19% of Independents chose a Republican candidate, while 39% chose a Democratic candidate.

Although nearly a third of total Independents remain undecided, True Independents have shifted toward Democrats since March, with 20% now supporting a Democratic candidate and 10% supporting a Republican.

A whopping 49% of Independents are currently undecided, raising the stakes for Republicans as midterms draw closer.

Critical bipartisan legislation funding farmers and road infrastructure has lagged in Congress, and Republicans in both chambers initially blocked War Powers Resolutions to halt military hostilities in Iran that are driving up gas and food prices.

“Republicans have a problem on their hands. If these economic pain points continue or get worse, the worse it's going to be for them for the midterms,” Noble said.

“What it's doing is just pushing voters towards the Democrats. People are not happy, they're feeling the economic pinch, and because of that, Republicans are hurting, and it's benefiting Democrats," he added. "So Republicans [will] want to get a handle on this sooner rather than later as we get closer to these November elections coming up.”

Notably, groups particularly sensitive to the rising costs of living are turning to Democrats, who have criticized recent price increases due to the Iran conflict, President Donald Trump’s tariff policies, and Republican infighting or inaction in Congress over cost-of-living issues like healthcare and housing.

The median annual household income in the U.S. was $83,730 in 2024, according to the United States Census Bureau.

The July Voters’ Voice Poll showed that Americans earning under $50,000 per year favored Democrats over Republicans, 49% to 39%.

The median income for Black households was about $32,000 less than that, while the median income for Hispanic voters was approximately $18,000 less than the overall median income.

Only 13% of Black voters and 38% of Hispanic voters said in the Voters’ Voice Poll that they would choose a Republican candidate.

Younger voters aged 18-29, who typically have the lowest salaries of any nonretired age group, also leaned left, with 55% supporting a Democrat and only 33% supporting a Republican. All age groups, however, favored Democrats at least slightly over Republicans.

Female voters, whose median income in 2024 was about $14,000 less than males’, supported a Democratic candidate by 52% and a Republican candidate by 35% in the poll, with 11% remaining unsure.

By contrast, 48% male voters surveyed supported Republicans, while 43% supported Democrats.

“What this tells us is that basically this cost of living [issue] is a dominant pressure point, and so until they can get this fixed, it's just going to be a problem,” Noble said. “This is top of mind for folks, it's impacting them, and again, it's likely going to impact voting. I think also it impacts mostly those toss-up congressional seats, because those are the battlegrounds, that's more where the persuadables outsize the partisans.”

Even without Republicans’ political woes, political parties in power generally perform poorly during midterm elections. In the current political climate, Noble added, Democrats’ best chance of regaining control of Congress is to focus on pocketbook issues rather than President Trump’s controversial actions.

“So I'm non-partisan, but if I was advising Democrats, they literally have the stupidest, simplest task ahead of them if they want to win,” Noble said. “It blows my mind, [because] Democrats still, to this day, haven't figured out that attacking Trump does nothing for them. Trump is defined – people have their opinion of them. Just focus on the economy and costs, affordability. That's all you’ve got to do.”

The poll’s margin of error is +/- 1.93%.