Politics

(WASHINGTON) — The Department of Homeland Security took steps on Wednesday to codify the Obama-era Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program into regulatory policy — even as a court case threatens to upend the ability of migrants who were brought illegally into the U.S. as young children to remain in the country.

Since President Barack Obama launched the policy in 2012, the DHS estimates that more than 825,000 immigrants have been enrolled in DACA, which temporarily protects them from deportation and allows them to obtain work authorization.

The DHS’ final rule, issued Wednesday after being subject to public comment, is a technical move that seeks to absorb DACA under administrative law rather than through presidential discretion.

The rule largely preserves the eligibility criteria outlined in a 2012 memo by then-Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, including the requirement that applicants must have arrived in the U.S. before the age of 16 and must have continuously resided in the country for at least five years before June 15, 2012.

“We are taking another step to do everything in our power to preserve and fortify DACA, an extraordinary program that has transformed the lives of so many Dreamers,” Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas said in a statement on Wednesday.

“Thanks to DACA, we have been enriched by young people who contribute so much to our communities and our country. Yet, we need Congress to pass legislation that provides an enduring solution for the young Dreamers who have known no country other than the United States as their own,” Mayorkas said, referring to the people in the program by a common nickname.

Since its inception, DACA has faced multiple legal challenges from those who say Obama overreached his authority. An ongoing case in the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals seeks to have the court rule the program unlawful and end it. A decision there may come any day.

Despite Wednesday’s regulatory filing by DHS, DACA remains closed to new applicants as a result of a July 2021 decision from a federal court in Texas. Only those who already have DACA status can apply to renew it under the new framework, according to DHS.

The department’s final rule would not go into effect until Oct. 31 and it was unclear how Wednesday’s move would impact any current litigation.

“President [Joe] Biden campaigned on strengthening and fortifying DACA. This final DACA rule fails to strengthen the program by not expanding it to include the majority of undocumented immigrant youth who are graduating from high school this year and not eligible for the program because of arbitrary cut-off dates,” Juliana Macedo do Nascimento, deputy director of federal advocacy for the group United We Dream, said in a statement, in part.

“This rule does not bring us any closer to seeing true protection for DACA recipients and immigrant youth,” Macedo do Nascimento said.

The DHS rule will preserve the original process for applying for a renewal of deferred action — shielding young migrants from deportation — and a work permit despite the department suggesting in an earlier proposal that it would have potential applicants apply for a permit and for deportation protection separately.

Immigration advocates had warned that decoupling the two benefits would leave people susceptible to losing work authorization while maintaining deferred deportation if a future administration wished to make DACA recipients ineligible to work.

DHS estimates that as of 2020, DACA recipients and their households pay around $5.6 billion in annual federal taxes and $3.1 billion in annual state and local taxes. Many people in the program have gone on to acquire professional certificates, advanced school degrees and about 56,000 have become homeowners, DHS said.

After the final rule was published, Biden issued a statement on Wednesday reaffirming his support for the “Dreamers,” whom he said were “part of the fabric of this nation.”

“They serve on the frontlines of the pandemic response. They are students, entrepreneurs, and small business owners. Many serve bravely in our military. They’ve only ever known America as their home,” Biden said.

Although the president made no mention of the ongoing legal challenges to DACA, he called on Republicans to support a pathway to citizenship — a politically fraught process that has divided the GOP and repeatedly failed, over the years, to result in federal legislation.

“It is not only the right thing to do,” Biden argued of congressional action, “it is also the smart thing to do for our economy and our communities.”

Copyright © 2022, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(TALLAHASSEE, Fla.) — Most of the Florida school board candidates backed by Gov. Ron DeSantis won their elections on Tuesday — an indication that the ascendant Republican’s conservative stance on education is moving the needle with some parents across the state.

DeSantis at his election night rally on Tuesday night declared victories for his endorsees, of which 25 out of 30 won or are likely to win their races.

He again lauded that success on Wednesday at a rally in Seminole County, casting the races in the culture-war language that has become his signature.

“We were able to take school boards that had leftist majorities … people that wanted to mask your kids, people that wanted to indoctrinate your kids. We were able to replace them all across the state,” DeSantis argued at another stop on his “Keep America Free” tour. “We were able to replace union-backed candidates with conservatives.”

In the days leading up to Florida’s primaries, DeSantis campaigned across the state on his “Education Agenda Tour.” He joined with school board candidates who share his “anti-woke” agenda, giving them one final push before their races.

“We didn’t have a primary for me … we didn’t have Senate [race], attorney general [race], none of that,” he said. “So what was the motivation?” he added, referencing the turnout of Republican voters. “One of the reasons is we worked hard to elect pro-student, pro-parent candidates all across the state of Florida.”

With DeSantis at the helm, Florida Republicans have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on the down-ballot, typically apolitical races. The rare move to endorse and even share campaign funds with school board candidates comes as DeSantis has made a legislative push to preserve what he calls parents’ rights in schools, over criticism that he is trying to restrict some topics from the classroom.

In recent months, Florida’s GOP-controlled legislature has passed bills barring race-based conversations in schools and for some grades, the discussion of sexual orientation and gender identity.

The issue of education and parents’ oversight of the classroom has become a key tenant of the GOP’s campaign message in recent years, in particular after the onset of COVID-19 and the resulting remote schooling and school closures. Voters in some places have responded favorably, such as with Republican Gov. Glenn Youngkin’s 2021 victory in Virginia.

Youngkin ran in large part on the issue of parental choice in COVID-related school restrictions.

In recent months in Florida, DeSantis has signed legislation like the Parental Rights in Education Bill, denounced by its opponents as the “Don’t Say Gay” bill, which bans the discussion of sexual orientation or gender identity in schools for children from kindergarten to third grade or in other classroom settings where it is deemed inappropriate.

DeSantis also signed the so-called Stop WOKE Act to block critical race theory in schools. (The theory is typically taught only in high-level academic settings, not grade school.) Last week, a federal judge declared portions of that bill unconstitutional.

The governor’s school board victories in Florida include two races in Miami-Dade County, one of the stops on DeSantis’ “Education Agenda Tour.” Monica Colucci, who rallied with him on Sunday, defeated a 24-year incumbent on her platform of keeping “socialist curriculums” away from schools.

In Sarasota, another of Florida’s largest counties, three DeSantis endorsed candidates won their races, flipping the school board to a four-to-one conservative majority.

The Florida Department of Education — whose commissioner, Manny Diaz, also spoke on DeSantis’ tour — announced last week it would give U.S. military veterans and their spouses five-year temporary teaching certificates as they complete bachelor’s degrees. The policy has been opposed by teachers’ unions across Florida, who say hiring unqualified instructors would be harmful to students.

Democrats, who also decided to endorse 18 school board candidates, saw just five victories on Tuesday night. They unseated Fred Lowry, who as a Volusia County councilman faced calls to resign after he espoused a far-right conspiracy theory.

Diyonne McGraw, who was removed from her seat last year by DeSantis and replaced with Mildred Russell after it was discovered she lives around 300 feet outside of the district, ran again and beat out Russell.

Copyright © 2022, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — President Joe Biden on Wednesday nominated Kim Cheatle to lead the United States Secret Service, the White House announced.

“Kim has had a long and distinguished career at the Secret Service, having risen through the ranks during her 27 years with the agency, becoming the first woman in the role of Assistant Director of protective operations,” Biden said in a statement.

The Bidens have a close relationship with Cheatle. She served on Biden’s security detail when he was vice president. Biden said his family “came to trust her judgment and counsel.”

“She is a distinguished law enforcement professional with exceptional leadership skills, and was easily the best choice to lead the agency at a critical moment for the Secret Service,” his statement said. “She has my complete trust, and I look forward to working with her.”

The director is not a Senate-confirmed position.

Prior to leaving the agency for the private sector, Cheatle not only served in leadership roles in Washington, D.C. but also around the country for the agency.

“She has deep knowledge and understanding of the Agency’s missions to investigate and protect. I am confident that her skillset, combined with her fresh perspective, will ensure the Secret Service builds on its strong foundation to grow and evolve into an even more effective agency,” Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas said in a statement on Wednesday.

The Secret Service is housed in the Department of Homeland Security.

Don Mihalek, an ABC News contributor and a retired Secret Service agent who worked with Cheatle during his time at the agency, told ABC News she “is a professional that has the competency and capability to lead the agency.”

Mihalek said the agency she is returning to is “different” than the one she retired from two years ago, and it will be her decision which direction the agency goes.

The Secret Service has come under scrutiny as of late for the deletion of text messages on and in the days surrounding the Jan. 6 insurrection.

A Secret Service spokesman last month acknowledged text messages from Jan. 5 and Jan. 6, 2021, were deleted after being sought by the DHS inspector general.

A letter sent by the inspector general last Wednesday to the heads of the House and Senate Homeland Security Committees said the messages were deleted “as part of a device-replacement program” despite the inspector general requesting such communications.

Anthony Guglielmi, the agency spokesman, dismissed any “insinuation” the agents had “maliciously” deleted the texts.

The agency sent out communications to employees on how to upload digital files on their local devices if they are government records, according to a source familiar with the Secret Service migration process.

Copyright © 2022, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — President Joe Biden announced Wednesday that his administration is forgiving some student loan debt for U.S. borrowers and extending the federal student loan repayment pause until Dec. 31, both actions that have been highly anticipated and closely watched by millions of Americans.

The move comes a week before the pause on student loan repayments was set to expire on Aug. 31. The measure was put in place in the early days of the coronavirus pandemic and was designed to relieve borrowers from defaulting on student loans and allow them to begin repayments in good standing when the state of the economy improved.

The new changes could “provide relief to up to 43 million borrowers, including cancelling the full remaining balance for roughly 20 million borrowers,” according to a White House fact sheet.

The move could be of particular benefit to women, who hold nearly two-thirds of all student loan debt in the U.S., according to the American Association of University Women, and Black borrowers, who are disproportionately burdened by student loan debt, according to the National Consumer Law Center.

Below are some of the top questions surrounding student loan forgiveness and what experts say borrowers should consider.

How much in student loans can be forgiven?

The president tweeted an outline of the changes on Wednesday, which include forgiving up to $20,000 in student loan debt for Americans who attended colleges and universities on federal Pell grants and up to $10,000 for Americans who did not attend schools on Pell grants. This would only apply to borrowers who earn $125,000 or less per year.

When does student loan repayment start?

The federal student loan pause ends on Dec. 31. Those with student loans will have to start making repayments in January 2023.

Additionally, those with undergraduate loans will be able to cap their repayments at 5% of their monthly income.

How many Americans have student loan debt?

The federal government estimates that more than 45 million Americans have approximately $1.6 trillion in student loan debt, according to the White House fact sheet published Wednesday.

What is the average amount of student loan debt?

According to data from the U.S. Department of Education, American undergraduates hold nearly $25,000 in student loans after graduation.

Who do you contact when it’s time to enroll in a repayment plan?

Borrowers should contact their loan servicer(s) to determine how to begin or resume making repayments and to discuss specific conditions of repayments. If a borrower was using an auto-debit service previously, they should not expect the service to proceed again automatically.

What happens when you refinance a student loan?

Student loans can be federal student loans that are funded by the federal government or private loans managed by a lender like a bank, school, state agency, or other institution. Private student loans are not included in Biden’s student loan forgiveness plan.

A federal student loan can be refinanced or reorganized into a private loan with different terms, but borrowers should carefully consider the benefits and drawbacks before doing so. There are advantages a borrower may have to give up if refinancing, including qualifying for temporary loan payment relief, no interest periods, potential loan forgiveness and discharges, according to the Department of Education.

What is the best student loan repayment plan?

There are several types of student loans and a borrower will need to take a closer look at what types of loans they have — whether federal or private — and the different terms for each loan.

How else can a borrower get student loan forgiveness?

The federal government is giving borrowers until Oct. 31 to apply for a waiver and credits for past repayment periods under the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program, a federal program that forgives student loan balances after a borrower, who has worked full-time for a qualifying employer, has completed 120 qualifying payments. These payments can be ones made under income-driven repayment plans.

Under the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2018, the federal government also established a Temporary Expanded Public Service Loan Forgiveness program which may apply to borrowers who don’t necessarily qualify for the PSLF program.

Borrowers can visit the StudentAid.gov website to see if they qualify for or to apply for the PSLF/TEPSLF program and/or waivers and credits.

For additional information on the student loan forgiveness program changes and for more details that will be released in the coming weeks, borrowers can visit the StudentAid.gov website.

Copyright © 2022, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Under order from the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, the Justice Department on Wednesday released a 2019 memo used by former Attorney General William Barr to justify his decision not to prosecute then-President Donald Trump for obstruction of justice arising from Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation.

The department initially released a redacted version of the memo in May 2021, stemming from a Freedom of Information Act suit brought by the watchdog group the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW). That version fully redacted more than six out of the memo’s 10 pages.

On Friday, however, a panel of judges in the D.C. Circuit ordered the release of the full memo, affirming a district court decision that had found Barr and other DOJ officials were not candid in their statements about the role the memo played in their decision to not charge Trump.

DOJ officials previously told the court that the memo should be kept from the public because it involved internal department deliberations and the advice given to Barr about whether Trump should face prosecution.

But a district judge ruled that Barr was never engaged in such a process and had already made up his mind to not charge Trump.

The full memo released Wednesday outlines the rationale given to Barr from Steven Engel, the former head of DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel, and Ed O’Callaghan, the then-principal associate deputy attorney general.

Both write that former special counsel Mueller’s report on his investigation of Trump and Russia “identifies no actions that, in our judgment, constituted obstructive acts, done with a nexus to a pending proceeding, with the corrupt intent necessary to warrant prosecution under obstruction-of-justice statutes.”

In the March 2019 memo, they said their determination was reached separate from considering whether Trump was already immune from prosecution because of his status as a sitting president.

“The memorandum advised Attorney General Barr on what, if any, determination he should make regarding whether the facts articulated in Special Counsel Mueller’s report were sufficient under the Principles of Federal Prosecution to establish that the President of the United States had committed obstruction of justice,” a Justice Department spokesperson said in a statement Wednesday.

“The suit was filed under the Freedom of Information Act seeking public disclosure of this internal memo,” the spokesperson said. “The litigation involved only whether the government had properly withheld from disclosure portions of the memo under FOIA – it did not involve the merits of the advice provided in the memo.”

In the 2019 document, Engel and O’Callaghan detailed multiple justifications for declining a prosecution of Trump for actions stemming from the Mueller report, which laid out 10 possible instances of obstruction of justice investigated by the special counsel’s team.

They wrote that the instances in Mueller’s report were not similar to “any reported case” DOJ had previously charged under obstruction-of-justice statutes and described Mueller’s obstruction theory as “novel” and “unusual” because of the conclusion he reached in the first volume of his report — that evidence developed “was not sufficient to charge that any member of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with representative of the Russian government to interfere in the 2016 election.”

“It would be rare for federal prosecutors to bring an obstruction prosecution that did not itself arise out of a proceeding related to a separate crime,” the memo states.

Engel and O’Callaghan wrote that “much of” Trump’s conduct in the report instead “amounted to attempts to modify the process under which the Special Counsel investigation progressed, rather than efforts to impair or intentionally alter evidence… that would negatively impact the special counsel’s ability to obtain and develop evidence.”

Copyright © 2022, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — A federal judge is expected to rule Wednesday on the Biden administration’s lawsuit against a near-total ban on abortions in Idaho.

The U.S. Department of Justice sued the state over the ban, which goes into effect on Thursday, arguing that it violates a federal law guaranteeing access to emergency medical care.

The Idaho abortion law would make it a felony to perform an abortion in all but extremely narrow circumstances. There are exceptions for cases of rape or incest that have been reported. To avoid criminal liability, a doctor must prove that the abortion was necessary to prevent the death of the pregnant woman, though there is no defense for an abortion to protect the woman’s health, according to the DOJ.

In its complaint, filed on Aug. 2, the Justice Department claimed that the Idaho law violates the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, which states that hospitals that receive Medicare funds are required to provide necessary treatment to women who arrive at their emergency departments while experiencing a medical emergency. That medical care could include providing an abortion, according to the DOJ.

The Justice Department is seeking a declaratory judgment that the Idaho law is preempted by the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act in emergency situations, as well as an order permanently barring the law to the extent that it conflicts with the federal act.

U.S. District Judge B. Lynn Winmill in Boise said he plans to issue a decision in the case on Wednesday.

The lawsuit marked the Biden administration’s first legal challenge to a state abortion ban after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Roe v. Wade in June, ending the constitutional right to an abortion.

Prosecutors argued that the Idaho law would prevent doctors from performing medically necessary abortions, as required by federal law.

Idaho Attorney General Lawrence Wasden called the lawsuit “politically motivated” and charged that the DOJ did not attempt to “engage Idaho in a meaningful dialogue on the issue” prior to filing its complaint.

A case involving the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act as it pertains to abortion care is also ongoing in Texas.

Last month, the state of Texas sued the Biden administration on its guidance to hospitals that doctors should perform an abortion if doing so would protect a woman’s health. The complaint was filed days after Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra instructed hospitals to follow the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act when determining whether to provide an abortion in emergency cases “regardless of the restrictions in the state where you practice.”

On Tuesday, a federal judge temporarily blocked the federal government from enforcing the guidance, saying the federal law is “silent as to abortion.”

Attorneys for the state of Idaho drew attention to that case in a court filing on Wednesday, stating that the state “has not yet had a full opportunity to consider how the Texas court’s decision should be persuasive in aspects of this current lawsuit, or in the pending preliminary injunction motion.”

Idaho’s so-called trigger law would be even more restrictive than an abortion ban that went into effect in the state earlier this month. That law, modeled after a similar “heartbeat law” in Texas, bans abortion at about six weeks and also allows civil lawsuits against medical providers who perform the procedure.

Amid legal challenges from abortion providers, the Idaho Supreme Court upheld both abortion laws in a ruling issued on Aug. 12, allowing them to go into effect.

Another trigger law that would make it a felony for doctors to perform an abortion after about six weeks of pregnancy went into effect on Aug. 19 in the state. That law, which has exceptions for rape, incest and medical emergencies, is also currently being challenged by abortion providers.

ABC News’ Alexander Mallin contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2022, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — First lady Jill Biden tested positive for COVID-19 on Wednesday in a “rebound” case, her office said.

The first lady — who first tested positive on Aug. 16 — received her second negative test on Sunday and joined the president in Delaware, coming out of her isolation period spent in South Carolina. She again tested negative on Tuesday, her deputy communications director Kelsey Donohue said.

The president tested negative for COVID-19 on Wednesday, according to the White House.

“The First Lady has experienced no reemergence of symptoms, and will remain in Delaware where she has reinitiated isolation procedures,” Donohue said in a statement on Wednesday. “The White House Medical Unit has conducted contact tracing and close contacts have been notified.”

The president returned to the White House from Delaware on Wednesday morning. The first lady was supposed to accompany her husband to a Democratic National Committee event in Maryland on Thursday but will now remain isolated in Delaware.

The president “will mask for 10 days when indoors and in close proximity to others,” a White House official said. “We will also keep the President’s testing cadence increased and continue to report those results.”

Jill Biden, who is double vaccinated and twice boosted, was prescribed the antiviral treatment Paxlovid, which President Biden also took after testing positive last month. Like his wife, the president also suffered a rebound COVID-19 case.

Paxlovid is authorized under emergency use by the Food and Drug Administration for Americans ages 12 and older who are at high-risk for severe illness from COVID-19. Preliminary estimates suggested that the drug provided an 89% reduction in virus-related hospitalizations and deaths.

However, in recent months, as use of the drug ramped up, there was an increasing number of anecdotal reports of rebound cases, where individuals test positive for COVID-19, after testing negative, following completion of the treatment course. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, a COVID-19 rebound has been reported to occur between two and eight days after initial recovery.

Although experts say preliminary estimates of Paxlovid rebounds are likely undercounted, White House COVID-19 Response Coordinator Dr. Ashish Jha suggested after President Biden’s Paxlovid rebound that the phenomenon may happen in 5% to 8% of patients.

Federal officials report that a rebound infection can also occur in patients receiving no treatment or in patients receiving other COVID-19 therapeutics.

ABC’s Karen Travers reports:

ABC News’ Molly Nagle, Arielle Mitropoulos and Sarah Kolinovsky contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2022, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(NEW YORK) — Come January, 25-year-old Maxwell Frost will likely be the first member of Generation Z elected to Congress.

Frost is projected to win Florida’s 10th Congressional District Democratic primary, held Tuesday, ABC News reports. Frost defeated Randolph Bracy, whom much of the party establishment backed.

Following his projected win, Frost thanked his community for supporting his campaign.

“I love this community and my decade-long fight for everything and everyone in it is just getting started,” he said in a press release.

Frost, who just turned 25 this year, was a national organizer for the ACLU and then became the national organizing director of March for Our Lives, a youth-led organization dedicated to ending gun violence.

If he wins in November — when he’ll face military veteran Calvin Wimbish — he will fill the reliably blue seat of Rep. Val Demings, who on Tuesday won the Democratic nomination for Florida’s Senate race.

Frost has the backing of leading progressives like Sens. Elizabeth Warren, Ed Markey and Bernie Sanders.

He spoke with ABC News in March about his run for Congress, saying then that he believes it’s time to elect younger leaders who better represent the values and ideas that the younger voters care about and want to see.

Some of the major issues Frost ran on include gun control, “Medicare for All” and addressing climate change.

The 2022 election cycle marks the first-time members of Generation Z — those born after 1996 — are eligible to run for seats in the House of Representatives, where legislators must be 25 years old by the time they’re sworn in.

Another Gen-Zer may join Frost in Congress in the new year: Karoline Leavitt, a former congressional and Trump White House aide who is running in New Hampshire’s 1st Congressional District Republican primary, will be on the ballot in September, when she will learn if she continues to the general election in November.

Copyright © 2022, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(NEW YORK) — Democrats are projected to win a special House election in New York on Tuesday in a race seen as a potential bellwether for this year’s midterms, ABC News reports.

The contest between Democrat Pat Ryan and Republican Marc Molinaro in New York’s 19th Congressional District was sparked when Democratic Rep. Antonio Delgado was appointed lieutenant governor.

Ryan and Molinaro, both of whom are local county executives, were running in the 19th as it existed prior to redistricting. But the seat being decided in Tuesday’s special election will cease to exist in January — and both candidates ran in primaries for separate seats on Tuesday as well.

The 19th has been among the swingiest in the country, with President Joe Biden carrying it by fewer than 2 points in 2020 and former President Donald Trump winning it by about 7 points in 2016.

With 99% of the expected vote being reported on Tuesday, Ryan was leading Molinaro 51-49.

The special election was seen as potentially indicative because of the messages tested by the two candidates — each trying to motivate their base and sway independents.

Molinaro focused on inflation, which remains at decades-long highs. Ryan, meanwhile, campaigned heavily on abortion access, saying it was a “freedom” issue after the Supreme Court this summer reversed Roe v. Wade.

Republicans continue to point to polls showing that the economy is among voters’ top concerns and that Biden gets poor approval ratings.

However, Democrats say that voters will be motivated by the Supreme Court’s decision on abortion and argue that the recent passage of the Inflation Reduction Act, among other major legislative priorities, could blunt the electoral impact from headwinds like inflation.

Copyright © 2022, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(NEW YORK) — New York Rep. Jerrold Nadler is projected to defeat Rep. Carolyn Maloney, ABC News reports, after a bitter incumbent-on-incumbent primary on Tuesday that forced Manhattan Democratic voters to pick between two senior House lawmakers.

With about 81% of the expected vote reported, Nadler won with 56% over Maloney, who trailed with 25%. Suraj Patel, a 38-year-old attorney and former Obama staffer who ran on a generational argument against the two septuagenarians, came in third place with 18% of the vote so far.

Nadler will be the heavy favorite in the general election in the deep-blue district.

He and Maloney, erstwhile legislative allies both elected in 1992, helm the House Judiciary and Oversight Committees, respectively. They were forced into the same district after a heavily gerrymandered map drawn by Democrats during redistricting was thrown out in court, leading an outside third-party mapmaker to redo the decennial lines.

Nadler played a prominent role in former President Donald Trump’s first impeachment and touted the need for New York City to have at least one Jewish lawmaker in its House delegation. Maloney, meanwhile, boasted that Democrats should prioritize keeping a woman in Congress,

The primary became increasingly nasty as Election Day neared.

Nadler highlighted Maloney’s votes on high-profile issues, including her past support for the Iraq War and Bush-era Patriot Act and opposition to the Iran nuclear deal during the Obama administration.

Maloney, meanwhile, appeared to knock Nadler over his stamina, even though he, at 75 years old, is just one year her junior.

She seemingly seized on his age after he sat at a primary debate while Maloney and Patel stood. She also expressed worries about “if for some reason someone will not serve their term,” citing “tons of rumors out there.” She later reportedly said she thinks Nadler would finish another term.

Patel, who came within 4% of unseating Maloney in a 2020 primary, sought to cast himself as a fresh face against the two longtime lawmakers, boasting in a press conference on Monday that “this is not 1992 anymore.”

Copyright © 2022, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.