Skip to main content

Dems pick nominees in key Wisc. districts as Sean Duffy’s son-in-law wins GOP primary

▶ Watch Video: David Crowley projected to defeat Francesca Hong in Wisconsin Democratic primary

National Democrats see two Wisconsin districts currently held by Republicans as up for grabs in November — the 1st and 3rd Congressional Districts. 

Though both are among their top targets, the latter is seen as their best chance to flip a seat in the state. 

Here’s how the primaries in those key districts — as well as an open seat in the 7th Congressional District, where the son-in-law of Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy is vying to win — are shaping up.

1st Congressional District

Democrat Mitchell Berman will face incumbent GOP Rep. Bryan Steil in Wisconsin’s 1st Congressional District in the November election, CBS News projects. 

Berman, a nurse, defeated two other Democratic opponents to win his primary Tuesday. According to the latest data from the Federal Election Commission, Berman raised significantly more than his primary competitors, but Steil has a $6.1 million cash-on-hand advantage over Berman. 

Steil was first elected in 2018, replacing former House Speaker Paul Ryan, who represented the southeastern Wisconsin district from 1999 to 2019. 

A Democrat has not represented the district in more than 30 years, but House Democrats’ campaign arm, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, considers it as one of 46 districts in play this cycle. 

The University of Virginia’s Center for Politics rates the race as likely Republican. 

3rd Congressional District

The general election in Wisconsin’s competitive 3rd Congressional District will be a rematch between Democrat Rebecca Cooke and the Republican incumbent, Rep. Derrick Van Orden, CBS News projects. 

Cooke — who has the backing of House Democrats’ campaign arm, which considers the seat a top target as the party seeks to regain the majority — beat progressive Emily Berge to win the Democratic nomination. 

Cooke lost to Van Orden in 2024 by less than three percentage points. The University of Virginia’s Center for Politics rates the race as a toss-up.

Cooke also has a fundraising edge over Van Orden, according to the latest data from the Federal Election Commission. Cooke has raised about $8.6 million compared with Van Orden’s $7.5 million. Van Orden, however, has nearly $3 million more cash on hand than his Democratic opponent. 

Van Orden first won the western Wisconsin seat in 2022, flipping the district red. Cooke lost a primary bid that year for the Democratic nomination. 

7th Congressional District

Duffy’s son-in-law Michael Alfonso won the Republican primary in Wisconsin’s solid-red 7th Congressional District on Tuesday, CBS News projects. The Democratic primary remains unsettled.

The district, which stretches across northwestern Wisconsin into the central part of the state, is currently represented by GOP Rep. Tom Tiffany, who is running for governor. 

The seat was held by Democrats for decades until Duffy won in 2010. Duffy resigned from Congress in 2019, citing the health complications of his ninth child. 

The Cook Political Report considers the seat solid Republican. 

President Trump endorsed Alfonso in January, calling him “a young ‘STAR.'” 

Trump’s 75-country immigrant visa ban struck down by judge

By CNN
(CNN) — The Trump administration’s ban on visas for immigrants from 75 countries was struck down by a federal judge on Friday, who ruled it was “contrary to law” and outside the statutory authority of Secretary of State Marco Rubio.In January, the State Department paused the issuance of immigrant visas from almost 40% of the world’s nations – including Brazil, Colombia, Egypt, Haiti, Somalia and Russia – in a move that it said would prevent the entry of people who would “take welfare and public benefits.”Judge Jeannette Vargas of the Federal District Court in Manhattan took issue with the State Department’s rationale for the policy, reversing any visa denial based solely on it – in another setback to the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown.Under the law, an immigrant can only be turned away as a likely “public charge” (someone expected to depend on government support) after a consular officer weighs that person’s own finances, age, health, skills and family situation.Judge Vargas found that, in practice, US officers were ordered to reject visas for applicants, even those who could support themselves, solely based on the country they came from.The visa ban halted permanent-residence visas for people joining family members or taking jobs in the US, but did not apply to nonimmigrant visas such as tourist or student visas.A cable that Rubio sent to every diplomatic and consular post, and which was entered into the case record, directed officers to refuse applicants even when someone “provides additional evidence that demonstrates he or she overcomes the public charge refusal.”“The outcome is predetermined,” Vargas wrote. “The visa will be refused.” The policy, she said, ran afoul of a 1965 law barring discrimination by nationality in granting visas, and of a separate provision denying the secretary of state any say over how consular officers decide individual cases.Denials that rested on other legal grounds stand, even where an officer also cited the ban, leaving the number of reversals expected unclear.Most of the 75 countries are non-European, spanning the Caribbean, sub-Saharan Africa, the Balkans, the Middle East, Central Asia and Southeast Asia, and count several US partners among them, including Jordan, Egypt and Georgia. The State Department drew its list from Council of Economic Advisers data, targeting nations where more than 30 percent of immigrant households received some form of public assistance.Among the plaintiffs were six US citizens who filed family-based petitions and said the ban blocked relatives in Ghana, Jamaica, Guatemala and Ethiopia from obtaining visas. Five Colombians who had applied through job-based visas, one of whom received a denial notice that cited the policy, were also part of the case.The administration did win on one narrower point, with the judge agreeing the policy was not the kind of formal rule that must be opened to public comment before being implemented.In arguing their case, the administration’s legal team leaned on a 2018 Supreme Court decision upholding the third version of Trump’s first-term travel ban, which barred entry by nationals of several countries, most of them majority-Muslim. But Vargas said that case turned on the president’s power to decide who may enter the country, whereas the visa ban case rested on a different question: whether a visa may be issued at all.Vargas, an appointee of former President Joe Biden, gave both sides until September 11 to propose how to resolve what remains of the case. The administration can appeal the ruling.CNN has reached out to the Justice Department and the White House for comment.The-CNN-Wire™ & © 2026 Cable News Network, Inc., a Warner Bros. Discovery Company. All rights reserved.
Read Next Story

Related Stories

Latest News
Russian strike on Ukraine kills at least 2, a day after deadly mall attack
44 minutes ago

Russian strike on Ukraine kills at least 2, a day after deadly mall attack

Con su capital político en juego, Trump realiza un mitin en apoyo de Darline Graham en Carolina del Sur

With his political capital on the line, Trump rallies for Darline Graham in South Carolina

Polymarket remitió al Departamento de Justicia decenas de posibles casos de uso de información privilegiada, según una fuente

Pilot reports possible burn injuries after passenger's laptop catches fire