Welcome to the Thursday, July 16, 2026, Brew.
By: Briana Ryan
Here’s what’s in store for you as you start your day:
- Oakland could join 47 other of the 100 most populous U.S. cities with strong mayor governments
- White House cites Trump v. Slaughter decision in removing three members of the Election Assistance Commission
- U.S. Sen. Gary Peters becomes the 28th retiring member of the U.S. Congress to endorse a successor this year
Oakland could join 47 other of the 100 most populous U.S. cities with strong mayor governments
Oakland, California, voters will decide on a ballot measure to amend the city charter to create a strong mayor form of government, changing the distribution of power and responsibilities among the mayor, city administrator, and city council.
Oakland is one of seven of the 100 largest cities in the country with a hybrid government. Forty-seven of the 100 largest cities have a strong mayor government, which Oakland could switch to. Forty-six have council-manager governments.
Each of these three types of government has a different distribution of powers and responsibilities between the mayor and the city council:
- Strong mayor : The city council serves as the city's primary legislative body, and the mayor serves as the city's chief executive.
- Council-manager : An elected city council — which includes the mayor and serves as the city's primary legislative body — appoints a chief executive called a city manager to oversee day-to-day municipal operations and to implement the council's policy and legislative initiatives.
- Hybrid: The city council serves as the city's primary legislative body, and the mayor serves as the city's chief executive. However, the mayor appoints a city manager to oversee the city's day-to-day operations and to implement city policies.
Among the 10 largest cities, strong mayor governments are most prevalent. Six of the 10 largest cities have strong mayor governments, and four have council-manager governments. Oakland is the 44th largest city in the country by population.
Oakland Mayor Barbara Lee and City Council President Kevin Jenkins introduced the measure. On June 16, the council voted 4-4 to put the measure on the Nov. 3 ballot. Lee cast the tie-breaking vote in favor, bringing the total to 5-4.
Lee is the fourth person to serve as Oakland mayor since November 2024. In November 2024, Oakland voters successfully recalled former Mayor Sheng Thao 61% to 39%. Thao left office following the certification of the vote in December 2024. Then City Council President Nikki Fortunato Bas served as acting mayor until January 2025, when the city council appointed Kevin Jenkins to serve as interim mayor. Jenkins, who did not run in the April 2025 special election for Oakland mayor, served until Lee's swearing-in in May 2025. Currently, Lee is running for re-election this year.
Lee, who supports the measure, said, "This proposal is not about concentrating power in the hands of any one elected official. It's about structural change, clarifying responsibility so the public knows who is accountable when action is needed, and how government can more effectively deliver constituent services."
City Council member Zac Unger, who opposed the measure, said, "The council members under strong mayor would continue to be the face of futility … and will essentially become shields for all of the failures of the administration. If council members lose primacy on budgeting, lose primacy on legislation, lose even more juice on constituent services, then what is a council member even for than to act as a punching bag?"
Under Oakland's current hybrid system, authority is divided among the mayor, city administrator, and city council. The mayor appoints the city administrator, who oversees the day-to-day operations of city departments. Meanwhile, the city council serves as the city's legislative body and adopts laws and policies.
Under the strong mayor form of government, the mayor would serve as the city's chief executive officer and would have authority over city departments, agencies, and appointed offices. The mayor could also veto ordinances and resolutions approved by the city council, while the council could override a veto with at least six votes. There are eight members on the council.
The measure would also authorize the city council to confirm department heads, conduct legislative hearings, and issue subpoenas. It would require council members to serve full-time, prohibit them from holding employment that conflicts with their official duties, and authorize the Public Ethics Commission to set the salaries of elected city officials.
The last time voters in one of the 100 most populous U.S. cities changed their government system through a ballot measure was in 2022, in Portland, Oregon. Voters approved a measure 58% to 42% to change Portland's form of government from a city commission system to a hybrid system. A city commission is a form of government in which a city council, composed of an elected mayor and a board of elected commissioners, serves as the city's primary legislative and administrative body.
In 2021, Minneapolis, Minnesota, voters approved a measure 52% to 48% to change the city's form of government from a hybrid system to a strong mayor system. Also that year, Austin, Texas, voters defeated a measure 86% to 14% to change the city's form of government from a council-manager system to a strong mayor system.
Click here to read more about the Oakland, California, Mayoral Powers, City Council Oversight, and Elected Officials Charter Amendment.
White House cites Trump v. Slaughter decision in removing three members of the Election Assistance Commission
On July 9, President Donald Trump (R) removed the three remaining members of the Election Assistance Commission (EAC), leaving the four-seat commission without any members. The White House cited the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision in Trump v. Slaughter, which held that it is within the president's power to remove members of the Federal Trade Commission, another independent agency within the federal government.
The dismissal of the three members means that the EAC is unable to conduct official business until at least three new commissioners are appointed by the president and confirmed by the U.S. Senate. The EAC previously operated without a quorum of commissioners between 2010 and 2014 until the U.S. Senate approved three commissioners.
According to Aaron Blacksberg, federal policy counsel at the Institute for Responsive Government, "With no commissioners, the agency’s authority will go to the EAC Executive Director, who has limited authority to continue running EAC operations as outlined in the EAC’s Roles and Responsibilities policy." The EAC has full-time staff members in addition to the four commissioners.
The EAC is a federal commission responsible for developing election administration guidance and helping states comply with federal voting law. The commission comprises four members, with two from each of the two major political parties. The commissioners are appointed by the president, subject to the advice and consent of the U.S. Senate.
The EAC’s responsibilities include creating and maintaining federal standards for voting equipment and accrediting and certifying laboratories to test voting systems. The agency also helps states comply with the Help America Vote Act of 2002 and maintains the national mail voter registration form that the National Voter Registration Act requires states to use.
According to multiple outlets, Trump fired the two Democratic commissioners, Thomas Hicks and Benjamin Hovland, and requested the resignation of the one remaining Republican commissioner, Christy McCormick. The fourth commissioner, Donald Palmer, resigned from the commission in April to accept a position at the Heritage Foundation.
A White House official stated, "The President, and head of the Executive Branch, reserves the right to remove individuals that may not be totally aligned with the important task of securing America’s elections and ensuring every legal vote is counted. The Slaughter decision gives the President precedence to do so."
On June 29, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld Trump’s dismissal of Federal Trade Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter, ruling that it is within the president’s executive powers to dismiss members of the independent agency.
The decision overturned Humphrey's Executor v. United States, a 1935 case in which the Supreme Court ruled that the President could not remove a Federal Trade Commissioner for any reason other than "inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office." In subsequent jurisprudence, the Humphrey's Executor precedent limited presidential power to remove leaders of multi-member independent agencies to the reasons the U.S. Congress enumerates in statute.
In an interview with the news outlet Votebeat, Rick Hasen, professor of election law at the University of California, Los Angeles, said that it was unclear whether the Supreme Court’s ruling applied to the EAC and Federal Election Commission, as "the question has not been tested as to whether political entities created with bipartisan balance might be subject to another exception."
On July 14, Hicks told PBS that he planned to “weigh all my options before thinking about moving forward” with a possible lawsuit over his firing.
Click here to learn more about the Election Assistance Commission (EAC).
U.S. Sen. Gary Peters becomes the 28th retiring member of the U.S. Congress to endorse a successor this year
On July 13, U.S. Sen. Gary Peters (D-Mich.), who is not running for re-election this year, endorsed Haley Stevens (D) in the Democratic primary to succeed him in representing Michigan in the U.S. Senate.
Peters is the 28th member of the U.S. Congress who is not running for re-election this year to endorse a candidate in a primary election to succeed them. That's 40.6% of the 69 members of the U.S. Congress who are not running for re-election this year.
In 2024, 17 of the 53 members of the U.S. Congress (32.1%) who did not run for re-election endorsed a candidate in a primary to succeed them.
U.S. Senate
Six of the 11 U.S. senators (54.5%) who are not running for re-election this year have endorsed a candidate in a primary to succeed them. That's more than in 2024, when three of the eight U.S. senators (37.5%) who did not run for re-election endorsed a candidate in a primary to succeed them.
Three of this year's endorsed candidates are Democrats, and three are Republicans. In 2024, two endorsed candidates were Democrats, and one was a Republican.
All six endorsed candidates are running in contested primaries this year. So far this year, two endorsed candidates have won their primaries, and four are running in primaries that have not yet occurred.
In 2024, one endorsed candidate ran in and won a contested primary but lost the general election. The two endorsed candidates who ran in uncontested primaries went on to win their respective general elections.
U.S. House of Representatives
Twenty-two of the 58 U.S. representatives (37.9%) who are not running for re-election this year have endorsed a candidate in a primary to succeed them. That's more than in 2024, when 14 of the 45 U.S. representatives (31.1%) who did not run for re-election endorsed a candidate in a primary to succeed them.
Twelve of this year's endorsed candidates are Democrats, and 10 are Republicans. In 2024, nine endorsed candidates were Democrats, and five were Republicans.
Nineteen endorsed candidates are running in contested primaries this year, and three ran in uncontested primaries. So far this year, 15 endorsed candidates have won their primaries, and four have lost. Three candidates are running in primaries that have not occurred yet.
In 2024, 13 endorsed candidates ran in contested primaries. Five lost in the primaries. The eight who won their contested primaries also won their respective general elections. The one endorsed candidate who ran in an uncontested primary lost the general election.
Click here for more information about members of the U.S. Congress who endorsed a successor this year.
