Gov. Abbott announces special election for Texas Senate
The Brief
Gov. Greg Abbott announced a special election for Texas Senate District 9 set for Nov. 4, 2025.
The seat was vacated earlier this month when Kelly Hancock took a position in the Texas Comptroller's Office.
On Friday, political activist Leigh Wambganss announced she would seek election.
AUSTIN, Texas - Gov. Greg Abbott on Friday announced a special election to fill the Texas Senate seat left open by outgoing Sen. Kelly Hancock.
A special election for Senate District 9 will be held on Nov. 4, 2025. The district covers around half of Tarrant County, including North Richland Hills and more than half of Fort Worth.
The North Richland Hills Republican resigned from the Senate earlier this month to become chief clerk of the Texas Comptroller's Office. He will assume temporary leadership of the office Tuesday.
Hancock announced his campaign for comptroller, who serves as the state's chief financial officer, on June 19.
On Friday, political activist Leigh Wambsganss announced her candidacy for the open seat.
"I have spent my entire adult life as a volunteer public servant, not for a title, but out of conviction," she said in a statement. "From leading grassroots campaigns to serving on the front lines of the Second Amendment and pro-life movements, my mission has always been clear: to defend conservative Christian family values, safeguard our freedoms, and ensure Texas remains a stronghold for faith, family, and freedom."
In the wake of Hancock's announcement, Rep. Nate Schatzline said he would be looking to take the vacant seat, but pulled his candidacy on Friday announcing he would instead seek re-election in the House.
Schatzline put his support behind Wambsganss.
"My #1 goal was for SD9 to be represented by a true conservative, & with Leigh Wambsganss, that's exactly what you'll get. She has my full support," he said on X.
Wambsganss also won the support of Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick.
"She has been a leader of the conservative movement in Tarrant County and all of Texas," Patrick said. "She will be a great addition to our conservative Texas Senate."
The Source
Information on the November special election comes from Gov. Greg Abbott's office. Comments from Leigh Wambsganss, Nate Schatzline and Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick come from their respective X accounts.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
an hour ago
- Newsweek
Donald Trump Suffers Major Legal Blow: 'Grave Constitutional Violations'
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. On Friday, a federal judge blocked President Donald Trump's executive order targeting legal firm Susman Godfrey, ruling it was "unconstitutional from beginning to end." This is the fourth defeat in court Trump has suffered since imposing punitive measures on a number of law firms that either were involved in legal cases against him or represented his political rivals. Newsweek contacted the White House and Susman Godfrey for comment on Saturday outside of regular office hours via email and telephone respectively. Why It Matters In March, Trump issued a slew of executive orders targeting law firms resulting in a number taking legal action, though others struck deals with the White House which saw them agree to do unpaid work on behalf of causes the president supports. Critics argued Trump's move was unconstitutional and an assault on free expression, whilst the White House said it was needed to combat what it termed "dishonest" activity. What To Know The executive orders Trump imposed on various law firms, including Susman Godfrey, featured a number of punitive measures such as blocking their employees access to government buildings, terminating government contracts and suspending security clearance. Friday saw District Judge Loren AliKhan conclude that in the case of Susman Godfrey, Trump's order was "unconstitutional from beginning to end." She said: "Every court to have considered a challenge to one of these orders has found grave constitutional violations and permanently enjoined enforcement of the order in full. "Today, this court follows suit, concluding that the order targeting Susman violates the U.S. Constitution and must be permanently enjoined." President Donald Trump speaking during a press conference in the James S. Brady Briefing Room at the White House, on June 27, 2025, in Washington, D.C. President Donald Trump speaking during a press conference in the James S. Brady Briefing Room at the White House, on June 27, 2025, in Washington, D.C. MEHMET ESER/Middle East Images/AFP/GETTY Trump's executive order targeting Susman Godfrey was already the subject of a temporary restraining order issued by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia on April 15. Susman Godfrey is the fourth law firm targeted by Trump's executive orders that has successfully fought to get them blocked in court, following Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block and WilmerHale. The rulings were issued by judges appointed by both Democratic and Republican presidents. What People Are Saying In a statement, Susman Godfrey said: "The Court's ruling is a resounding victory for the rule of law and the right of every American to be represented by legal counsel without fear of retaliation. "We applaud the Court for declaring the administration's order unconstitutional. Our firm is committed to the rule of law and to protecting the rights of our clients without regard to their political or other beliefs. Susman Godfrey's lawyers and staff live these values every day." In his ruling on WilmerHale's case, Judge Richard Leon, a George W. Bush appointee, said: "The cornerstone of the American system of justice is an independent judiciary and an independent bar willing to tackle unpopular cases, however daunting. "The Founding Fathers knew this! Accordingly, they took pains to enshrine in the Constitution certain rights that would serve as the foundation for that independence." What Happens Next Friday's judgement means the executive order targeting Susman Godfrey will not go into effect. The Trump administration has not said whether it plans to appeal.
USA Today
2 hours ago
- USA Today
Planned Parenthood isn't the only loser in Supreme Court case. Women lose, too.
While Democrats have shied away from talking about abortion since the 2024 presidential election, it is still an issue Republicans are rallying around. Almost three years to the day since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, the justices have once again made a decision that will limit access to reproductive care. This time, they're explicitly coming after Planned Parenthood. On Thursday, June 26, the Supreme Court ruled in a decision that could allow states to keep Medicaid dollars from the organization. In the 6-3 ruling, the justices determined that individuals could not sue to choose their health care provider after a patient sued South Carolina to receive reproductive care from Planned Parenthood. By making this decision, the courts are potentially shutting Planned Parenthood out of millions of dollars that would go to necessary health care options like birth control, cancer screenings and testing for sexually transmitted infections. It's a ruling that, like Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson pointed out in her dissent, is going to harm people who rely on Planned Parenthood for their care. The plan was always to end abortion in every state It's just another instance of conservatives ignoring the realities of women's health care in favor of their beliefs, and a reminder that abortion continues to be a Republican target. It's also a reminder that we'll be living in this dystopian health care nightmare for a very, very long time. While Democrats have shied away from talking about abortion since the 2024 presidential election, it is still an issue Republicans are rallying around. They were never going to be satisfied with simply returning abortion rights back to the states, the plan was always to eradicate the health care procedure nationwide. Opinion: Who would want to have babies under a Trump administration? Not me. In May, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. ordered the Food and Drug Administration to review mifepristone, an abortion medication, because of a study from a conservative think tank that relies on flawed data. The majority of abortions in 2023 were medication abortions. If mifepristone were suddenly taken off the market, it would have huge ramifications for patients across the country. Planned Parenthood was also already struggling after President Donald Trump froze federal funding to more than 100 clinics earlier this year. It has led clinics across the country to shut down. His One Big Beautiful Bill Act also would block Medicaid patients from seeking care at Planned Parenthood, which could lead to more closures. None of this is happening in a vacuum. All of these Republican attacks amount to a nationwide assault on abortion rights, no matter where one is located in the country. Millions of people could soon lose access to the care they need because of the Republican agenda. Abortion bans aren't working. Defunding Planned Parenthood won't change that. Despite these targeted attacks on abortion, the procedure hasn't become less popular in the years following the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization decision. In 2024, there was actually an increase in abortions, with a quarter of those procedures occurring via telehealth for medication. Public opinion on abortion has remained steady, with Pew Research Center reporting that 63% of Americans supported abortion in all or most cases in 2024. Opinion: Democrats don't need to move to the center. Mamdani proves progressives can win. Clearly, Republican leaders are only listening to a small subset of their constituency when they decide to go after Planned Parenthood. They do not listen to the millions of people who have benefited from the wide range of services that the organization provides. Instead, they would rather spread falsehoods about abortion and how it is funded. They will not be happy until abortions are nearly impossible to obtain, even when someone's life is at risk. The Supreme Court's latest cruel decision shows that we are still living with the long-term repercussions of having Trump nominate three justices to the bench. And this is just the beginning. It's clear nothing is going to stop Republicans from attacking Planned Parenthood until it's unable to function because of a lack of government funding. It's shameful that they continue to put a political agenda ahead of the health care needs of women. It's also not changing anytime soon. Follow USA TODAY columnist Sara Pequeño on X, formerly Twitter: @sara__pequeno
The Intercept
2 hours ago
- The Intercept
Fetterman Voted With GOP to Make Sure Trump Can Attack Iran Again
In a Friday evening vote, the U.S. Senate rejected a war powers resolution that would have blocked President Donald Trump from making further attacks on Iran, despite widespread disapproval of last week's strikes. Senators voted 47-53, largely along party lines, on a measure offered by Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., that would have prohibited Trump from offensive measures while preserving his ability to defend U.S. forces. Kaine's resolution drew near-unanimous support from Democrats, including Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. 'I am hoping that the members of this body will stand up for the constitution.' In a floor speech Friday night, Kaine underscored the continuing need for the measure despite a fragile ceasefire, noting that Trump said as recently as Friday that he would be willing to bomb Iran again. 'I am hoping — I am realistic — but I am hoping that the members of this body will stand up for the constitution, will stand up for the proposition that war is too big to be decided by one person,' Kaine said before his measure failed. A single Republican, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., who often opposes foreign interventions, supported Kaine's measure. Aside from Paul, the resolution drew pushback from Senate Republicans. Critics said it would prevent the U.S. from defending Israel, despite an amendment from Kaine specifically designed to address that concern. 'President Trump seized the moment — responsibly, constitutionally, and decisively,' said Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyoming, the majority whip, on the Senate floor. 'America and our allies are safer today because of it. The resolution from Senator Kaine is not needed — and I oppose it. If passed, it would prevent the president from protecting us in the future.' The strikes revealed divisions within the Democratic caucus. Progressives largely opposed the strikes outright, while some pro-Israel Democrats offered qualified or full support. One of the most full-throated boosters was Sen. John Fetterman, D-Penn., who voted against Kaine's resolution. Fetterman has emerged as a leading proponent of the use of military force against Iran. 'Blow it up! Blow it up! I think we should waste what's left of their nuclear facilities,' he said in March. His aggressive stance has alienated former donors, who have requested refunds, and staffers, who have resigned at a steady pace. The war powers resolution was always considered a longshot, since it would have required the support of a veto-proof majority of both chambers of Congress. A similar attempt in 2019 to end the Trump administration's involvement in Saudi Arabia's war on Yemen faltered when Trump vetoed it, and Bernie Sanders, I-Vermont, pulled a similar resolution from consideration in 2022 amid pushback from Joe Biden's administration. Kaine's measure, however, did put senators on the record about how they feel about Trump's unpopular strikes. Americans disapproved of the strikes 56 percent to 44 percent, according to a snap CNN poll conducted immediately after the attack. The results mirror other surveys. Many Democrats sought to criticize Trump without directly addressing the strikes by voicing concern over the administration's failure to obtain congressional approval before the attack, or to adequately brief Congress after it. 'The Democratic Party needs to clearly stand up against this war.' In the House, progressives and ranking committee leaders have offered two alternative war powers resolutions. Advocates say the version offered by Democratic leaders would do little to prevent Trump from launching future strikes if he justifies them as defending Israel. At a press conference Wednesday, Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., said the party should back the tougher resolution, which he cosponsored with Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky. 'The Democratic Party,' Khanna said, 'needs to clearly stand up against this war and take the mantle again of being the anti-war party, the party that stands up against wars of choice, against these endless wars in the Middle East.'
