Philly-area House Dem says he won't seek reelection
'I remain in good health and fully capable of continuing to serve. After some discussions this weekend and thoughtful reflection, I have decided that the time is right to announce that I will not be seeking re-election in 2026,' the congressman said in a statement.
Evans, 71, suffered a stroke last year that kept him from voting at the Capitol for seven months. Several local Democrats said last week, before Evans's announcement, that they were weighing primary challenges against the congressman, who until recently maintained that he was still running.
Evans has held the seat since 2016, after 35 years as a state legislator. He said that he planned to serve out his full term.
Several state lawmakers are now weighing bids for his seat, including Pennsylvania Democratic Party Chair Sharif Street and Reps. Morgan Cephas and Chris Rabb.
Evans is the third Democrat over 70 to announce his retirement this year. Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-lll.) said this year that she wouldn't seek a 15th term. Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.) said in April he wouldn't seek reelection before dying the next month from cancer. He was 75.
Debate over the age of Democratic incumbents has been a flash point for the party of late, with former Democratic National Committee vice chair David Hogg announcing a $20 million fund to support young candidates challenging aging lawmakers. He lost his spot in formal party leadership in the ensuing controversy.
More than half of the 30 House Democrats over 70 in May told Axios that they were planning to run again.
Democrats are not the only party with older representatives, however. Former Rep. Kay Granger (R-Texas) stopped coming to votes last year because she had been living in an assisted-living facility with what her son called 'dementia issues.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
28 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Jasmine Crockett unleashes on Ghislaine Maxwell talking to Trump DOJ before Congress: ‘Out of jail for free'
Rep. Jasmime Crockett wants Ghislaine Maxwell — who is serving a 20-year sentence for aiding sex trafficking financier Jeffrey Epstein — to testify before Congress before she speaks under oath to the Trump Justice Department. US Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, President Donald Trump's former personal attorney, will meet with Maxwell on Thursday in Florida, where she is serving out her two-decade sentence for scheming with the late pedophile power-player to sexually exploit and abuse young women and girls. The meeting comes just a day after the House Oversight Committee, on which Crockett sits, voted to subpoena Maxwell. On Wednesday, House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer issued a subpoena and set Maxwell's deposition date for Aug. 11. 'I don't know that we'll get anywhere, but I know if there's anybody that I want to talk to her, it is us — and not the administration — because at least if she comes before the committee, even if it's behind closed doors, it will be bipartisan,' Crockett, a frequent Trump antagonist, told The Independent. 'It won't just be one side able to ask questions, it'd be both sides, whereas the administration, they're a bunch of thugs,' she railed. 'And frankly, if it means that she can engage in a coverup, he'll most likely let her out of jail free. He's let people out of jail for far less.' This comes after the Department of Justice released a two-page memo on July 6 saying that Epstein, the convicted pedophile, had no 'client list' and died of suicide in his New York City jail cell, where he was found hanged by bed sheets. But Crockett, who spoke to The Independent before Comer issued his subpoena, also cautioned that she did not know if they would actually hear testimony from the once high-flying former socialite Maxwell. 'I don't know if she has appeals that are pending, and I'm sure that her attorneys will have some issues, some questions surrounding so it's more complicated than just subpoenaing her,' the Democrat said. 'We can subpoena all we want to. We have had a number of transcribed interviews as well as depositions over the last two weeks, and frankly, a lot of them ended with nothing because people invoked privilege and things like that.' Crockett has become a fundraising dynamo because of her combative style of questioning on the Oversight Committee and her willingness to joust with Republicans in the majority. But she recently lost her bid to replace the late Gerry Connolly (D-VA) as the top Democrat on the committee to Rep. Robert Garcia (D-CA). Garcia told The Independent that subpoenaing Maxwell does not mean the committee trusts her to be truthful. 'She's a documented liar, she's obviously done an enormous amount to harm young girls and and and has an interest, of course, in, in being free,' Garcia said. 'We should still want to have her come testify in front of oversight in the Congress, but, but we should just be very we should understand that this is a very complex witness and someone that has caused great harm and not a good person to a lot of people.' The House of Representatives broke a day early after the House Rules Committee ground itself to a halt because Democrats continued offering amendments to release files related to Epstein. In an attempt to mollify Democrats and some conservatives, Republicans proposed a non-binding House resolution to get the Department of Justice to release files. In addition, Rep. Thomas (R-KY) and Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA) have a discharge petition, which would force a vote and circumvent Speaker Mike Johnson, to release files related to Epstein. Massie, a critic of Trump, accused Johnson of covering for the president. 'He doesn't want a paper-thin sliver of daylight between him and the president, and so that's why he's avoided taking even the symbolic vote on the non-binding resolution,' Massie told The Independent. Trump, a friend of Epstein's for many years before a falling out that appears to have come before it was publicly known the financier was being investigated over his sex trafficking, has criticized his supporters and others for focusing on the Epstein case. He also vehemently denied a story in The Wall Street Journal that he sent Epstein a note for the disgraced financier and predator's 50th birthday party and also filed a $10 billion lawsuit against the newspaper and its owners News Corp and Rupert Murdoch, among others.
USA Today
42 minutes ago
- USA Today
Donald Trump says Beyoncé should be 'prosecuted' for alleged Harris endorsement payment
Donald Trump still has a political bone to pick with Queen Bey. The president, who has previously voiced criticism of celebrities who showed support for his election counterpart, Kamala Harris, took to social media on Saturday, July 26, to renew his unfounded claim that pop star Beyoncé was allegedly paid $11 million to endorse Harris' presidential bid. In the lead-up to the 2024 presidential election, the "Cowboy Carter" songstress made her endorsement of Harris official when she appeared at the former vice president's abortion rights rally in her hometown of Houston in October. She also cleared the usage of her 2016 song "Freedom" for Harris, and the tune became the Democratic nominee's official campaign song. "I'm looking at the large amount of money owed by the Democrats after the presidential election and the fact that they admit to paying, probably illegally, $11 million dollars to singer Beyoncé for an ENDORSEMENT (she never sang, not one note...)," wrote Trump in a fiery Truth Social post, also citing alleged endorsement payments to media mogul Oprah Winfrey and civil rights activist Al Sharpton. USA TODAY has reached out to a representative for Beyoncé for comment. "Can you imagine what would happen if politicians started paying for people to endorse them. All hell would break out!" Trump concluded. "Kamala and all of those that received endorsement money BROKE THE LAW. They should all be prosecuted! Thank you for your attention to this matter." Trump's digital tirade comes just two months after he accused the Grammy-winning singer and other celebrities of being paid to publicly support Harris' candidacy. In a May Truth Social post, the GOP president announced plans for a "major investigation" into the Harris campaign's celebrity endorsements. Catch up: Trump calls Beyoncé's endorsement of Kamala Harris 'illegal' Did Beyoncé receive payment for Kamala Harris endorsement? At the time of Trump's original allegations in May, the Federal Election Commission had no record of an $11 million payment to Beyoncé from Harris' presidential campaign. Additionally, the agency does not have rules explicitly prohibiting candidates from paying for endorsements. It is unclear where Trump got the unsubstantiated $11 million figure. The Harris campaign last year rejected a rumor that it paid Beyoncé $10 million for her endorsement that spread on social media shortly after the music star's October 2024 appearance with Harris. Beyoncé's mother, Tina Knowles, also pushed back at the $10 million rumor in a November 2024 Instagram post, calling it "false information" and a "lie." She added that the singer "actually paid for her own flights for her and her team." Oprah Winfrey says she was not paid a 'personal fee' for Kamala Harris rally What has Beyoncé said about Kamala Harris campaign? During her October 2024 appearance at Harris' rally, Beyoncé, who was joined by fellow singer and Destiny's Child alum Kelly Rowland, said "It's time for America to sing a new song" when describing Harris' presidential bid. "I'm not here as a celebrity. I'm not here as a politician. I'm here as a mother," the pop star added. "Your freedom is your God-given right, your human right." Harris has long been a fan of Beyoncé. The California-born politician attended the singer's Renaissance World Tour in 2023 just outside of Washington, D.C., after she gifted Harris tickets. Contributing: Caché McClay, Joey Garrison and Swapna Venugopal Ramaswamy, USA TODAY
New York Post
an hour ago
- New York Post
Gov. Hochul's latest redistricting threat is dangerous and undemocratic
Gov. Kathy Hochul and fellow Democrats are again threatening to rig New York's congressional voting-district maps to win seats for their party. And in mid-decade, no less, in clear violation of the state Constitution. It's sleazy, anti-democratic — and illegal. Even Hochul admits it, but suggests Dems may do it anyway since Texas and Ohio are moving to draw up new districts in their states. Gov. Kathy Hochul and Democrats are again threatening to rig New York's congressional voting-district maps, writes The Post Editorial Board. Andrew Schwartz / 'All's fair in love and war,' she huffed last week. 'If there's other states violating the rules and are trying to give themselves an advantage, all I'll say is, I'm going to look at it closely.' Huh? If Texas and Ohio rig their maps, that doesn't give Hochul & Co. the right to break New York's laws — even if her goal is to offset any advantage Republicans get in those states. Note, too, that Hochul is huffing not about protecting New York's influence in Congress but her party's. And at the expense, presumably, of Republican voters in New York, since the goal would be to draw district lines favorable to Democrats. True, Texas and Ohio Republicans are expected draw lines they hope will favor them. But if those states cheat their Democratic voters, those voters can sue. Hochul and her party are worried that if more Republicans are elected from those states, it'll make it harder for Democrats to win control of the House in next year's midterms. But again, if the donkeys think those states are breaking any laws, they can go to court, too. Meanwhile, if Hochul tried to gerrymander in time for the midterm, she'd be doubly violating the state Constitution. First, redistricting can take place only once every 10 years, after the Census, not mid-decade. Second, in 2014 New Yorkers passed a constitutional amendment that empowered an independent decennial redistricting commission and specifically banned partisan gerrymandering. But Democrats ignored the amendment and tried to gerrymander anyway a few years ago, and it took a ruling by the state's top court to stop them. We don't condone gerrymandering, by either party, in any state. It cheats voters, skews representation and undermines democracy. As even Democratic boss Jay Jacobs warns, 'We need to be careful about democracy,' adding, 'You don't change the rules of the game to your advantage just because you can.' Given the tight timeframe, it's unlikely Democrats could pull this off. But then, if New York Dems were willing to violate the Constitution before, who can be sure they won't 'break the rules' again to push through corrupt new district lines in time? New Yorkers of both parties should demand Hochul take back her threat and obey the law.
