Open Newswire

Residents around Calumet received a peek behind the curtain Aug. 21, 2026, at the iron reclamation project set to transform the former Annex Hill Mine.

(The Center Square) – Republican members of the California State Assembly on Monday afternoon urged their Democratic counterparts to consider costs to Californians when passing bills this week, the last week of the legislative session. The urgent request, which followed the release of an Aug. 24 letter signed by 12 Assembly Republicans to the Legislative Analyst’s Office, asked the nonpartisan agency to compile a “Citizen Cost Impact Report” to analyze several bills that passed the Legislature this year. The report would assess the rising cost of living for California residents, the letter said. “We are focused on what people are thinking about,” Assembly Minority Whip David Tangipa, R-Fresno, said a press conference Monday afternoon at the Capitol. “When they scan their card at the gas station, they’re thinking about their pocketbook. "When they pay their insurance they’re thinking about their pocketbook, and we are focused on solving those issues for them," Tangipa said in Sacramento. In the letter sent to the Legislative Analyst’s Office, Assembly Republicans said more than 800 bills are awaiting votes before the 2026 legislative session concludes at the end of this week. Many of those bills have cost-of-living implications for Californians, making the price of living and running a business in the Golden State increasingly higher. “In my district, affordability isn’t a talking point. It’s a daily reality,” Assemblymember Jeff Gonzalez, R-Indio, said at the press conference. “Families are already struggling to find well-paying jobs and affordable housing, buy groceries and put gas in their cars.” Five bills in particular - Assembly Bill 1448, Assembly Bill 1776, Assembly Bill 2646, Senate Bill 295 and Senate Bill 1259 - were named as legislation that Assembly Republicans wanted the Legislative Analyst's Office to assess in its report. AB 1448 would prohibit oil and gas-drilling leases off the coast of California on the Pacific Outer Continental Shelf. AB 1776 would restrict large corporations from engaging in monopolistic conduct, and AB 2646 would establish a $19.75 per hour minimum wage for agricultural workers. SB 295 would prohibit the use of pricing algorithms that rely on confidential competitor data to set prices, and SB 1295 requires oil refineries to submit plans to the state detailing plans to retire sites throughout the state. That is according to the bill analysis for each bill. All those bills have yet to be voted on this week. Among the many measures Republican Assembly members criticized was a 23-year-old dormant law recently backed by the California Energy Commission. The panel, consisting of five members appointed by the governor, recently voted to require tire manufacturers to only sell tires in the state that meet certain requirements. That mandate was approved by the commission early last week and is in an effort to make cars with replacement tires more fuel-efficient, according to previous reporting by The Center Square. That bill was Assembly Bill 844 and was passed into law in 2003. “There was a bipartisan letter sent in June warning about these possible regulations costing Californians,” Assembly Minority Floor Leader Josh Hoover, R-Folsom, said, answering a question Monday from The Center Square. “We would love to work with the supermajority next year on scaling back some of that before it gets implemented in 2029.” Democratic lawmakers, who were in an Assembly floor session on Monday afternoon with their Republican counterparts following the press conference, were not immediately available to answer questions late Monday.

James Horton will become interim fire chief when Raymond Hill retires Aug. 31.

The Tucson Unified School District will discuss its plan for closing and consolidating schools amid declining enrollment at its Aug. 25 Governing Board meeting. Clarifying details should come in the board meeting presentation called “Reimagining Our Schools Together — A Community Engagement Plan for Elements of the Enrollment Stabilization Program,” according to TUSD’s agenda. The […] The post Which schools could TUSD close? Board will discuss plan Tuesday appeared first on AZ Luminaria.

Gillon Property Group will finance the redevelopment using $1.49 billion in bonds issued by Port KC. But Gillon ultimately will be responsible to pay back that debt. The post Port KC approves property tax break for the Country Club Plaza redevelopment appeared first on The Beacon.

A data breach made public Monday by the North Dakota Department of Health and Human Services may have exposed health information of people receiving developmental disability services. A phishing email attack targeted the Department of Health and Human Services in July. The Information Technology Department investigated and determined that three Developmental Disabilities Division employees interacted […]

Vernell Sturns, a pioneering public servant, civic leader, mentor, husband, father, uncle, grandfather, and great grandfather whose career helped shape Fort Worth and North Texas, passed away after a life defined by leadership, perseverance and service to others.

"People with disabilities deserve the same opportunity as everyone else to choose where they live, build relationships, participate in their communities, and remain connected to the places they call home throughout their lives." The post Opinion: Why Disability Access Must Be Central To NYC’s Housing Strategy appeared first on City Limits.

مرکز عملیات تجارت دریایی بریتانیا روز دوشنبه ۲ شهریور اعلام کرد یک نفتکش در فاصله ۹ مایل دریایی در شمال‌شرق اش شیشاه عمان با یک پرتابه ناشناس هدف قرار گرفته است.

U.S. Rep. Melanie Stansbury (D-N.M.) sent a letter to several New Mexico state agencies Monday afternoon asking them to provide a “clear public accounting” of the various water sources that will support the Project Jupiter data center under construction in southern New Mexico.

The Hawk Fire northwest of Reno and north of Lake Tahoe ignited dry fuel mid-day on August 22 amid red flag warnings with wind gusts up to 40 mph. Within hours the wildfire exploded to thousands of acres with ash, smoke, and flames encompassing sage-covered hills in northern Nevada’s densely populated areas. This is the […]

A North Dakota landowner is among those protesting oil and gas rule changes proposed by the federal government.  The changes affect people such as Donald Nelson of Keene in northwest North Dakota. Nelson is a farmer and rancher who owns surface land but the Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Land Management owns the mineral […]

Leaders from Tarrant County College, UT Arlington and Azle ISD share how employers shape what students learn before entering the workforce.

Votebeat is a nonprofit news organization reporting on voting access and election administration across the U.S. Sign up for our free weekly newsletter to get the latest.What happened?The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday lifted one of two injunctions against President Donald Trump’s executive order restricting mail voting, but additional legal hurdles and practical considerations could make it difficult to implement it in time for the quickly approaching November elections. The unsigned ruling, which cut along ideological lines, focused on a relatively narrow legal question: whether the lower court’s injunction was premature. The majority made it clear that it was not deciding on the legality of Trump’s order as a whole, which is certain to be quickly challenged again in court as the administration moves to put its provisions in place.“The court’s disposition of this application does not mean that any measure taken by the government to implement the order will necessarily be lawful,” the majority wrote. “On that score, time will tell.” The ruling, made in response to an emergency request, didn’t specify which justices had joined it. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who dissented, warned that the ruling would create a “Kafkaesque nightmare” that “needlessly injects chaos and uncertainty into the upcoming midterm elections.” Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote a separate dissent, joined by Justice Elena Kagan. What’s the dispute?Shortly after Trump issued his executive order in March, states, nonprofit organizations, and Democratic Party committees filed multiple lawsuits seeking to block it. In June, in the case brought by states, U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani found that some key provisions of the order were unconstitutional and blocked them from going into effect for this year’s elections. Talwani issued an injunction specifically preventing the federal government from enforcing those provisions of the order against the 24 jurisdictions (23 states and the District of Columbia) whose attorneys general and governors brought the lawsuit. The list included most Democratic-led and swing states, including Arizona, California, Michigan, Nevada, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.The Trump administration appealed, arguing the judge’s order was issued prematurely, before the Postal Service and other relevant agencies had finalized their plans to carry out the order’s provisions. The administration also argued that the injunction prevented it from implementing the order in the unaffected states because of the logistical impossibility of a bifurcated mail-voting system. The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Talwani’s order in late July, prompting the administration to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to lift the order and allow the agencies to act in time for the November election. In filings, the states warned that “the consequences of allowing such transformative changes to take effect so close to this fall’s elections would be extreme” and would disenfranchise voters.On Aug. 11, Talwani issued a separate injunction against the order in the lawsuit brought by nonprofit groups, led by the League of Women Voters. The decision made it clear that her ban on implementing the law extended to all states, not just the 24 jurisdictions that brought the other lawsuit. That ruling again rejected the Trump administration argument that it was too soon to address the underlying issues. The Trump administration again asked the Supreme Court to issue a ruling and make it clear that it would also apply to the Aug. 11 court order. If not, Solicitor General D. John Sauer warned in a court filing, it would require prolonged legal battles that would “effectively run out the clock” on the government’s ability to implement its plans. On Friday, while the administration’s request was still pending before the Supreme Court, the Postal Service issued its final rules for implementing the order, which it said it would not put into effect for this November’s election unless and until the Supreme Court cleared the way.The Supreme Court’s ruling addressed neither the second injunction nor the fact that the Postal Service had issued final rules, leaving observers to wonder about how those developments might affect what happens next. “I expect that the trial court will now amend [the second] injunction and issue a new injunction that will stop USPS from implementing its now final rule. And that too may end up at the Supreme Court within a week,” wrote Rick Hasen, an election law professor at UCLA, on the Election Law Blog shortly after the ruling. What happens now?The Supreme Court’s ruling Monday will not be the final word on Trump’s executive order. The question before the Supreme Court was a relatively narrow one about whether Talwani issued her order prematurely, before the government had taken final action to carry out the executive order. The states and voting rights groups are likely to go back to court quickly to challenge the Postal Service and the final rules it issued last week. Talwani has also not yet ruled on whether the order can go into effect for future elections, which she found would be premature. A parallel case involving consolidated challenges brought by nonprofit groups and Democratic Party committees is pending in federal court in Washington, D.C.Should Trump’s executive order go into effect, it would mandate the creation of a series of lists. The Department of Homeland Security would be required to send each state a list of citizens over the age of 18. States using mail ballots would be required to send the federal government a list of all registered voters to whom they are sending mail-in and absentee ballots in key federal elections. The Postal Service’s final rule states that it will decline to deliver mail-in ballots in states that do not provide that list. The order would also create new design standards and ballot-tracking requirements for mail ballots. Creating such a complicated process before November presents a huge challenge for the cash-strapped Postal Service.Read more Votebeat coverage of Trump’s executive order on elections:Trump issues second executive order on elections, giving U.S. Postal Service unprecedented control over mail voting, March 31, 2026Trump administration sued by states over mail voting executive order, April 3, 2026One line in Trump’s order would reshape how long states have to store election records, April 6, 2026We still have questions about Trump’s new executive order on elections, April 6, 2026Two reminders that the rules of the 2026 election are still in flux, May 11, 2026Federal judge refuses to block Trump executive order on mail voting — for now, May 28, 2026USPS proposal to carry out Trump’s executive order could create new barriers to mail voting, May 29, 2026Trump’s moves to erect voting hurdles face race against the clock, June 15, 2026Federal judge blocks key pillars of Trump executive order restricting mail voting in 2026 election, June 25, 2026Trump administration asks federal judge to quickly lift ban on planned mail voting restrictions, July 2, 2026Trump is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to allow new mail ballot restrictions in the 2026 midterms, Aug. 3, 2026Federal judge blocks Trump’s efforts to restrict mail-in voting nationwide, Aug. 11, 2026Dion Nissenbaum is Votebeat’s senior national reporter and is based in Houston. Contact Dion at dnissenbaum@votebeat.org.Carrie Levine is Votebeat’s editor-in-chief and is based in Washington, D.C. Contact Carrie at clevine@votebeat.org.

Santa Barbara breast surgeon Rosa Choi, MD, has joined Cottage Health to launch the Cottage Breast Health Clinic, located at 2400 Bath Street, Suite 102, in Santa Barbara. Dr. Choi has more than two decades of experience in the community as a board-certified surgeon providing specialized care for patients with breast cancer, benign breast conditions […] The post New Cottage Breast Health Clinic led by Dr. Rosa Choi appeared first on Santa Barbara News-Press.

هم‌زمان با سقوط ارزش ریال جمهوری اسلامی، جهش تورم، بحران کمبود بنزین و فشار بر بازار کار، مقام‌های جمهوری اسلامی از تشدید تقابل با آمریکا تا کاهش تنش و بازگشت به مذاکره، مواضع متفاوتی مطرح کرده‌اند.

آیا اقتصاد ایران رو به فروپاشی است؟ گفت‌وگو با عطا حسینیان

رئیس مجلس نمایندگان آمریکا: مرحله تازه رویارویی با جمهوری اسلامی، فشار اقتصادی و تحریم است

دیدار مقامات عراقی با مقامات آمریکایی، روسی و آلمانی