Gazzola v Hochul Lawsuit  by Tom Reynolds

Another lawsuit against Hochul’s unconstitutional laws - Gazzola v Hochul - has been filed in the U.S. District Court for The Northern District of NY.

This lawsuit challenges thirty-one (31) inter-connected statutes that contain a multitude of new mandates impacting Federal Firearms Licensees (FFL’s) as both individuals and businesses who are engaged in the lawful commerce in firearms and in gun shows. The thirty-one (31) statutory provisions being challenged originated in four (4) Bills, signed into law between May 30, 2022 and July 1, 2022:

• Bill S.9407-B – signed May 30, 2022 (eff. June 30, 2022);

• Bill S.9458 – signed May 30, 2022 (eff. August 30, 2022);

• Bill S.4970-A – signed June 6, 2022 (eff., generally, June 30, 2022); 

• Bill 51001 – signed July 1, 2022 (eff., generally, September 1, 2022)

The lawsuit charges: “express animus against Plaintiffs…seeking to exercise their rights under the Second Amendment…the new laws collectively impair and impede the ability of the Plaintiffs to engage in the lawful commerce of firearms and to host a gun show, and to serve as a conduit for those seeking to exercise their fundamental Second and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The new laws also violate the Fifth Amendment rights of the Plaintiffs, including the right against self-incrimination.”

Some of the specific issues cited in the lawsuit:

• The transfer of the federal NICS background check making the NYS Police the “Point of Contact,” and the creation of a new division within the NYS Police to perform background checks, as a forced intermediary between the licensed dealer and the current, federal NICS system

• The “security plan,” including a “safe,” “vault,” or “secured and locked area on the dealer’s business premises” and the separate storage of ammunition.

• A “security alarm system,” including installation and maintenance by a third-party vendor, as well as specified placement of cameras with video recording devices with feed storage.

• The prohibition against entry of persons under eighteen years of age without a parent or legal guardian.

• Mandatory, semi-annual submission of the Book of Acquisitions and Dispositions (A&D Book) to the Defendant NYS Police.  (This violates federal law.)

• Access to inventory records “at any time” by “law enforcement agencies.”

• Authorization to the Superintendent of the NYS Police to “…promulgate such additional rules and regulations as the superintendent shall deem necessary to prevent firearms, rifles, and shotguns from being diverted from the legal stream of commerce.”

• Restriction against the sale of body vests.

• Establishing a new, standardized, classroom and live-fire course and test necessary for concealed carry handgun permits.

• Restriction against the purchase of a semi-automatic rifle without a license.

• Requirement of an ammunition background check.

The lawsuit points out that many of the new laws are vague and poorly defined.  (Well, when you rush laws through without input, you tend to make mistakes.)

Obviously, the purpose of these new laws is to bury the FFL’s in paperwork and then find an error in the paperwork, so the FFL’s license can be revoked.

Another purpose of the laws is to financially drive FFL’s out of business.  The lawsuit estimates that the “best guess” new costs are estimated to range from $200,000/year to approaching $1 million/year. Plaintiffs are small business owners, ranging from self-employed sole proprietors to small to medium-sized retail shops with less than five employees.  The costs directly burden a law-abiding citizen’s right to acquire a firearm and the necessary ammunition for self-defense.  Many of the new laws will financially burden the Plaintiffs to a point that they will be forced out of business, potentially as early as December 5, 2022, if no immediate relief is had from the Court.  (You can carry a gun in NY State but if you can’t find a store in which to buy it or to buy ammo…)

The lawsuit highlights the important role that FFL’s play in preventing disqualified / unlicensed people from obtaining a firearm.  It says, “The FFL…play a greater role even than state and local law enforcement relative to commerce in firearms.”  These FFL’s:

• Are the entities that assure that firearms are sold only to persons who are not “disqualified.”

• Personally make the preliminary assessment of the customer across the counter.

• Collect the personal information for the background check on the ATF Form 4473 and check the valid identification document.

• Says the words “denied” or “delayed,” and is face-to-face with the man or woman who will be leaving the store without the firearm.

• Has a federally-protected right to decline to complete a sale to an individual, even if the background check comes back “Proceed.”

Eighteen (18) County Legislatures across the State of New York are passing “Resolutions” in opposition to the complete package of ten Bills pushed through by Defendant Gov. Hochul and targeting, in particular, NY Bill S.51001. These “Resolutions” call out the animus and actions of the Defendants.

The lawsuit also points out that there are eight (8) other lawsuits against these laws, in progress.

This lawsuit charges NY State with:

• DEPRIVATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS

• PRE-EMPTION BY FEDERAL LAW

• VOID FOR VAGUENESS DOCTRINE

• CONSTITUTIONAL-REGULATORY OVERBURDEN

The Plaintiffs ask for a declaratory judgment that all thirty-one (31) new laws, rules, and regulations shall be struck down and denied of having any legal force or effect; an injunctive relief order restraining Defendants and their officers, agents, servants, employees, and all others from enforcing the laws, rules, and regulations complained of herein.

Not trusting the Hochul administration, the lawsuit further requests that: “…the appointment of a special referee or magistrate to monitor any actions by the Defendants and other associated offices and agencies…to monitor any claims of future Defendant compliance with their responsibilities…”

The hearing is scheduled for tomorrow (Thursday the 1^st of December) before Judge Brenda K. Sannes, the Chief U.S. District Judge.  She was an Obama appointment in 2014.

The attorney for the plaintiffs is Paloma Capanna.  NYS will have most likely have 3 lawyers challenging Paloma, since money is no object to them.

U.S. District Court for The Northern District of NY includes the counties of Albany, Broome, Cayuga, Chenango, Clinton, Columbia, Cortland, Delaware, Essex, Franklin, Fulton, Greene, Hamilton, Herkimer, Jefferson, Lewis, Madison, Montgomery, Oneida, Onondaga, Oswego, Otsego, Rensselaer, Saratoga, Schenectady, Schoharie, St. Lawrence, Tioga, Tompkins, Ulster, Warren, and Washington.  It’s decisions only apply to those counties.

• Biden’s Meanderings:  Consistency, thy name is NOT Biden!

  Biden on Fossil Fuels

  Statements by Joe Biden on fossil fuels

  February 2020: “We are going to get rid of fossil fuels...we’re going to phase out fossil fuels.”

  March 15, 2020: "No more drilling on federal lands. No more drilling including offshore. No ability for the oil industry to continue to drill, period. [It] ends.”

  October 19, 2022: “[W]e need to responsibly increase American oil production…let’s debunk some myths here. My administration has not stopped or slowed U.S. oil production; quite the opposite*.

  *Biden seems to have forgotten a few of his Administration’s energy initiatives:

• ·      Canceling the Keystone XL Pipeline;
• ·      Halting Lease Sales in Alaska’s ANWR;
• ·      Placing a Moratorium on Drilling on Federal Lands;
• ·      Rejoining the Paris Climate Accord;
• ·      Proposing Energy-Inhibiting Budgets;
• ·      Canceling Oil and Gas Drilling Leases;
• ·      Initiating Punitive Government Investigations;
• ·      Restricting Permian Basin Drilling Using Ozone Rules;
• ·      Imposing Stricter Methane Emissions Rules.

Biden on Gas Prices

October 27, 2022: “Today, the most common price of gas in America is $3.39 — down from over $5 when I took office**.”

**The most common price for a gallon of regular gas on the day he was inaugurated was $2.39.

Biden on Social Security Increase

Recently: Biden claimed, "on my watch, for the first time in 10 years, seniors are getting an increase in their Social Security checks." 

Of all people, the New York Times corrected his disinformation: "That increase was the result of an automatic cost-of-living increase prompted by the most rapid inflation in 40 years. Mr. Biden had not done anything to make retirees’ checks bigger.” 

“Not done anything?”  I beg to differ.  Biden can take some credit since he bears a lot of responsibility for the inflation which drove the increase.   

Biden on Unemployment

October 2022: Biden claims that September's unemployment rate was the lowest it has been in 50 years at 3.5%. 

Actually, it was a tie with three different months during Trump's administration in 2019 and 2020. 

Biden on the Deficit and Federal Debt

President Biden said that he has “cut the federal debt in half.”

The federal debt was $27.7 Trillion when Joe Biden took office in January of 2021. Last month, the federal debt exceeded $31 Trillion.

Biden seemed to mix up the debt with the annual deficit; the latter was cut in half between fiscal 2021 and fiscal 2022. However, the primary reason the deficit plummeted was that it had skyrocketed to a record high because of emergency pandemic relief spending that was not renewed.  Joe Manchin also deserves some credit for torpedoing $2.2 trillion of Biden’s plans. 

A Moody’s Analytics director said, “The actions of the administration and Congress have undoubtedly resulted in higher deficits, not smaller ones.”

Marc Goldwein, senior vice president at the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget told CNN (Yes, that CNN) Biden has “done lots of things that have increased deficits…” and has “…passed no pieces of legislation to directly reduce deficits.”

Travels With Xi

Biden said on at least three different occasions, per the Washington Post, "Folks, I spent a lot of time — more time with Xi Jinping than any other head of state. … I’ve traveled 17,000 miles with him,"

A White House official conceded that Biden was traveling to meet Xi and not with him.  “This was a reference to the total travel back and forth…for meetings.” 

Maybe they were Zooming when they were traveling?

Biden on 2A and Cannons

The Second Amendment was never absolute," Biden said. "You couldn’t buy a cannon when the Second Amendment was passed. You couldn’t go out and purchase a lot of weapons."

Since we’re a 2A organization, let’s explore this further.

In 1747, largely through the efforts of Benjamin Franklin, a plan was undertaken by local colonists to found companies of “horse, foot and artillery.” These companies were purely volunteer organizations and were armed and equipped at their own expense.

Privateers were privately owned and operated ships that, in the Revolutionary War, captured enemy ships for profit.  Their cannons were private property.  John Hancock owned some of them.

Until 1903, the Militia Act of 1792 outlined the common militia and how it could be called out.  Military historians can point to hundreds of locally raised private units that existed with artillery.

In 1934, under the National Firearms Act, artillery pieces were kept fully legal and free to own, without the federal government getting involved

In 1968, 185 years after the Revolutionary War ended, the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act regulated most “destructive devices” with a bore over .50-caliber. This meant that modern artillery were placed under ATF restrictions at that time.

Covering Biden’s Butt

The NY Times tried to give Biden some cover: “Mr. Biden, who at 79 is the oldest president in American history, has a long record of gaffes dating back to when he was a young man. But his misstatements have become more pronounced, and more noticed, now that he has the spotlight of the presidency constantly on him."

In other words, it’s not about his current mental state…he’s always been screwed up.  We’re just more aware of it now, so it’s no big deal. 

Thomas Paine on Biden?

And as to you, Sir, treacherous in private friendship and a hypocrite in public life, the world will be puzzled to decide whether you are an apostate or an impostor; whether you have abandoned good principles, or whether you ever had any.

Something to Give Thanks For  by Tom Reynolds

On Monday, SCOPE wrote that there were various other law suits challenging Hochul’s Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA).  One of them is the lawsuit between Firearms Policy Coalition and the 2nd Amendment Foundation v Nigrelli and Flynn; (the latter representing New York State). On Tuesday, gun owners got a reason to celebrate Thanksgiving.

The United States District Court Western District of New York ruled that the CCIA’s provision that, “it is a felony for a license holder to possess a firearm on all private property unless the relevant property holders actually permit such possession with a sign or by express consent” is unconstitutional.  

The judge believes the lawsuit against NY State is likely to succeed on its merits under the 2nd and 14th Amendments and granted a preliminary injunction.  He said that CCIA: “It forces individuals to give up their rights to armed self defense outside the home”.

The judge also denied New York State’s request for a 3 day delay in starting the preliminary injunction to give NYS the time to appeal, so it is immediately in effect.

District courts are the trial courts of the U.S. federal judiciary.  District courts' decisions only apply to counties in its jurisdiction.  Western District Court appeals are made to the  U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals.

The Western District includes:

Allegany, Cattaraugus, Chautauqua, Chemung, Erie, Genesee, Livingston, Monroe, Niagara, Ontario, Orleans, Schuyler, Seneca, Steuben, Wayne, Wyoming, and Yates. Major cities within its jurisdiction include Buffalo, Rochester, and Elmira.

The decision will only apply to these counties.

Undoubtably, NYS under Attorney General Letitia James will appeal.  The  U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals is going to be busy hearing CCIA cases!

2023 Looks Better  by Henry Kramer

Although final returns are not yet in from all districts at this writing, it is clear that the House will flip to Republican control, come the new year.  The margin may be small but there are definite consequences that should be of good cheer to second amendment protectors.

     It becomes unlikely that overbearing federal gun control legislation will make it through House committees or be passed in the next two years. However, in the “lame duck” session in this November and December, anything can happen – and it’s all bad.

    Vigilance is still required and so is voting.  If all registered gun owners in New York State had voted their interests in the midterms, Zeldin would have won the governorship and could have blocked overly strict gun control laws.  There will be another chance, in 2024, to replace second amendment hating legislators with those who believe in protecting constitutionalrights.

There is even some good news for New York residents. Although the New York legislatures remain firmly in Democrat hands, this election had to be sobering to New York Democrats.  Several House seats flipped from Democrat to Republican and Republicans came closer to winning the governor's race.

Democrats can blame their House loss on their redistricting overreach which forced a judge to rewrite the districts into something more In line with the NY Constitution. Had Democrats not been so greedy, the judge would probably have accepted a less one-sided redistricting and the Democrats might have kept a few seats, which might have saved the House for them.

Democrats should be scared.  They may need to think twice before they continue their quest to impose harsh gun control legislation on the people of New York.  But will they think twice? The possibility does exist that they will "double down" on gun control and continue to pass gun legislation that will likely not survive review in the courts and before the U.S. Supreme Court. They know it takes time and money to overturn these unconstitutional laws, through the courts.

Illegal Immigration  by Tom Reynolds

Illegal immigration should have been a big issue in the recent election. The Congressional Districts along the Mexican border (which should be the most affected) seem to tell a different story.

Congressional Districts along the Mexican border

Democrat victories (7):

• California 25

• California 52

• Arizona 7 (Large area)

• New Mexico 2 (Large area)

• Texas 16

• Texas 28

• Texas 34

Republican victories (4):

• California 48

• Arizona 6 (Tiny Area)

• Texas 23 (Large Area)

• Texas 15 (Tiny Area)

In the only Senate elections,

Democrats won in:

• California

• Arizona

In the Governors elections

Democrats won in:

• California,

• Arizona

• New Mexico

Republicans won in

• Texas

We know illegal immigration is out of control. For those of us in New York, we wonder why illegal immigration wasn’t an overriding issue in three of the four “border states”?

While we think of all four states as “border states”, there’s some interesting statistics that may demonstrate why those states have a different view of the immigration problem.

The USA / Mexico border is about 1,990 miles long. That’s a lot of mileage to cover with border security, especially when the US President isn’t interested in border security.

To give you a sense of scale:

• Texas has the longest border with Mexico, 1,254 miles.

(It’s about 1,294 miles from Albany NY to Omaha Nebraska.)

• Arizona is second with 389 miles.

(It’s about 390 miles from Erie PA to Albany NY along the NY Thruway.)

• New Mexico is third with 210 miles.

(It’s about 224 miles from Rochester NY to Albany NY along the NY Thruway.)

• California is smallest with 137 miles.

(It’s about 140 miles from Syracuse NY to Albany NY along the NY Thruway.)

Based purely on the amount of border exposure, it’s not hard to see why illegal immigration is such a big issue in Texas.

Obviously, there are other issues that affect illegal immigration, but the amount of border mileage gives us a clue as to why three border states seem less interested.

Playing Ping Pong with Gun Owners  by Tom Reynolds

On August 31^st, the GOA-NY lawsuit against NY’s Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA) – Antonyuk v Hochul - was dismissed by U.S. District Court Judge Glenn Suddaby because the plaintiff lacked standing.  Presumably, this was because the plaintiff had not yet violated the law. 

At that point, the CCIA was still in effect.

GOA-NY then filed a new lawsuit that cured the lack of standing; several plaintiffs declared under oath their intention to violate the law.

On October 6^th, the same District Court Judge issued a decision on the GOA-NY lawsuit.  He ruled that the CCIA violated the 1^st, 2^nd, 5^th and 14^th Amendments and issued a Temporary Restraining Order against several (but not all) parts of CCIA. 

At that point, major parts of the CCIA were not in effect.

New York State, under Attorney General Letitia James filed a motion for a temporary pause on the Judge Suddaby’s decision while she appealed that decision.  (Of course she did, since she is working on the taxpayers’ dime.) 

On November 15^th, United States Second Circuit Court of Appeals Judges Robert Sack, Richard Wesley and Joseph Bianco granted an Interim Temporary Injunction while the legal challenge makes its way through the courts.  (This is not a decision on the case, it just lets CCIA stay in effect while the case is being appealed.)

At this moment,the entire CCIA is in back into effect.

A three-judge panel of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals should next hear the full case.

Their decision can then be appealed to be heard by the entire Second Circuit Court sitting in en banc.

Decisions of the Circuit Courts are binding on all courts in its jurisdiction.

Actually…the CCIA is not entirely back into effect.

There have been numerous other law suits filed against CCIA and in a narrower one (Hardaway v. Nigrelli) on November 3rd,  U.S. District Judge John Sinatra, Jr. granted a request to stop enforcement of CCIA’s outlawing of carrying guns in a house of worship.  According to Sinatra’s order, the Temporary Restraining Order “…shall remain in effect pending disposition of case on the merits”.

There is some confusion as to whether this ruling means anyone can carry or only designated security can carry in a house of worship.  However, the ruling would appear to allow worship centers to set their own rules on who can carry.  Thus, a pastor or rabbi could decide that any and all congregants who possess a concealed carry license can be tasked with keeping the peace during services.

On November 15th, Letitia James filed an appeal of this Temporary Restraining Order.  This appeal has not yet been heard.

As of now, the CCIA restriction on houses of worship is not in effect.

Got it?

At a time of year when many gun owners are hunting, be careful out there; you may be a felon and don’t know it.  Perhaps, by the time your trial occurs, there will be some decision and you will no longer be a felon.

Election Update as of Thursday Night  by Tom Reynolds

On Thursday night, in the House, both Fox and CNN give the Republicans 218 seats.  Therefore, they have the 218 needed for a majority.  Democrats have 210 per CNN and 212 per Fox so there are either 5 or 7 undecided races

Note: In some cases, they differ as to the % of total vote in.

Uncalled races that are likely Republican victories and would bring Republicans to 219 (1 more than the majority.):

            In California 3rd, Republican leads by 9,500 votes with 61% in

Races where the Republican leads and winning all 3 takes the total to 222:

• In Colorado 3^rd, Republican Boebert leads by 550 votes with 99% in**

• In California 22^nd, Republican leads by 3,500 votes with 78% in

• In California 13^rd, Republican leads by 800 votes with 69%-93% in

     **Automatic recount if under .50%.   Currently.16%

Races where Fox - but not CNN - called it for the Democrat

• In Colorado 8^th, Republican trails by 1,600 votes with 99% in. 

• In California 47^th, Republican trails by 8,200 votes with 96% in

In Alaska’s House race, it is going to a second round of ranked voting since no one got 50%.  Two Republicans combined have 4,000 more 1^stchoice votes than the first place Democrat.  A fourth libertarian candidate got 4,000 votes.  81% to 91% in.

Note: Under ranked voting, the 4th place candidate is eliminated and his votes are redistributed based on 2nd choice.  If still no winner, the 3rd place candidate is eliminated and his votes are redistributed based on 2nd choice. 

Heavily Republican Alaska could end up with a Democrat Congressperson.

In the Alaska Senate election, Republican Kelly Tshibaka, (who earned an endorsement from former President Donald Trump), has a narrow lead over pro-impeachment Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski. With 97% of the votes counted, Tshibaka leads by 565.  Tshibaka and Murkowski both have approximately 43 percent of the vote.  Alaska is guaranteed a Republican Senator but the question is: who?

The Senate race will also be decided by ranked choice voting.  A recent video exposed a Senator Lisa Murkowski aide claiming the ballot measure instituting ranked choice votingwas promoted by people who “wanted Lisa to get reelected.”

Even if she does not win in the first round of voting, Murkowski could see a significant bump in the second round from voters who selected Democrat candidate Pat Chesbro as their first choice.  Before the election, Murkowski allied herself with Democrat Chesbro, who in turn said she was voting for Murkowski in an effort to gain support down ballot against Tshibaka.

Throughout the race, Murkowski was aided with $9 million from the Mitch McConnell-backed super PAC. The fund backed Murkowski even as it pulled funds from New Hampshire Senate Republican challenger General Don Bolduc and Arizona Senate Republican candidate Blake Masters, both of whom ended up losing while a Republican was guaranteed a win in Alaska.

Alaska’s Division of Elections will tabulate voters’ second and third-ranked choices on November 23rd, with officials striving to certify the election’s results on November 29th.

Question of the day: Will California ever finish counting?

Election Update as of Wednesday Night  by  Tom Reynolds

On Wednesday night, in the House, both Fox and CNN give the Republicans 218 seats.  Therefore, they have the 218 needed for a majority.  Democrats have 210 per CNN and 211 per Fox so there are either 6 or 7 undecided races

Note: In some cases they differ as to the % of total vote in.

Uncalled races that are likely Republican victories and would bring Republicans to 219 (1 more than the majority.):

            In California 3rd, Republican leads by 8,900 votes with 59% in

Races where the Republican leads and winning both takes the total to 221:

• In Colorado 3^rd, Republican Boebert leads by 1,100 votes with 99% in

• In California 22^nd, Republican leads by 4,000 votes with 50%-63% in

Races where the Republican trails:

• In California 13^rd, Republican trails by 600 votes with 85% in

• In California 47^th, Republican trails by 6,900 votes with 88% in

Races where Fox - but not CNN - called it for the Democrat

• In Colorado 8^th, Republican trails by 1,700 votes with 97% to 99% in.

Election Update as of Tuesday Night  by Tom Reynolds

On Tuesday night, in the House, both Fox and CNN give the Republicans 217 seats.  Need 218 for a majority.

Note: In some cases they differ as to the % of total vote in.

Uncalled races that are likely Republican victories and would bring Republicans to 220 (2 more than the majority.):

• In California 3rd, Republican leads by 10,300 votes with 57% in

• In California 27^th, Republican leads by 13,000 with 72% in

• In California 45th, Republican leads by 14,000 with 83% in

Races where the Republican leads and winning both takes the total to 222:

• In 1 Colorado 3^rd, Republican Boebert leads by 1,100 votes with 99% in

• In California 22^nd, Republican leads by 3,300 votes with 47%-63% in

Races where the Republican trails but is close:

• In Colorado 8^th, Republican trails by 1,700 votes with 97% to 99% in.  

• In California 13^rd, Republican trails by 600 votes with 85% in

• In California 47^th, Republican trails by 3,700 votes with 84% in

In 1 Alaska race, it is going to a second round of ranked voting since no one got 50%.  Two Republicans combined have 4,000 more 1st choice votes than the Democrat.  A 4th candidate Libertarian got 4,000 votes. 

Under ranked voting, the 4th place candidate is eliminated and his votes are redistributed based on 2nd choice.  If still no winner, the 3rd place candidate is eliminated and his votes are redistributed based on 2nd choice.

Election Update as of Monday Night  by Tom Reynolds

On Monday night, in the House, Fox gives the Republicans 217 seats and CNN gives them 214. Need 218 for a majority.

The three races where CNN & Fox differ:

• In 1 Arizona race, the Republican leads by 3,500 votes with 99% in. Fox but not CNN called it for the Republican.

• In 1 NY race, the Republican leads by 4,000 with 98% in. Fox called it for the Republican but CNN did not.

• In 1 Oregon race, the Republican leads by 7,500 with 99% in. Fox called it for the Republican but CNN did not.

Uncalled races that are likely Republican victories and would bring Republicans to 219 (1 more than the majority.):

In 1 California race, Republican leads by 10,000 votes with 53% in

In 1 California race, Republican leads by 13,000 votes with 65% in

Races where the Republican leads and winning both takes the total to 221:

In 1 Colorado race, Republican Boebert leads by 1,100 votes with 99% in.

In 1 California race, Republican leads by 3,000 votes with 54% in

Races where the Republican trails but is close:

In Colorado, 1 Republican trails by 1,700 votes with 99% in

In California race, 1 Republican trails by 750 votes with 78% in

In California race, 1 Republican trails by 3,000 votes with 80% in

In 1 Alaska race, it is going to a second round of ranked voting by adding 2^nd choices to the 1^st place votes. Two Republicans have 7,000 more 1^st choice votes than the Democrat but the 2^nd choices are unknowable. Heavily Republican Alaska could end up with a Democrat Congressperson

At best, the House ends with the Republicans holding a very small majority of only a few seats, ranging from 219 to 225.

217 sure plus the 2 Republicans in California that have substantial leads would bring them to a majority of 219 (1 more than they need.)

221 if they take the two seats they lead in.

222 if they take Alaska

225 if they take the 3 seats they closely trail

As of Monday night, in the Senate, the Republicans have 49 seats and the Democrats 50, with one Georgia election going to a runoff in December.

At best, the Senate ends in a tie with Kamala Harris breaking ties for the Democrats and Joe Manchin as a wild card on a few issues. Arizona’s Kristin Sinema has been an occasional wild card but with Democrat Kelly’s win in Arizona, she will probably be less likely to be a wild card.

At worst, the Democrats have 51 votes and they won’t need Manchin’s votes and will probably try to change the filibuster rule. That could come back to bite them in just two years!