While the biggest story in the political world right now is the manhunt underway for the Utah assassin, there doesn't seem to be much more to say about it yet, so I decided instead to highlight two other stories today, on two of this week's developments in Congress. It's not exactly a "three-dot Thursday" column, since it only has two completely unrelated stories, but it's at least something else to pay attention to as we all wait for developments from Utah.

Epstein files discharge petition only needs one more signature

This is somewhat of a curveball. Last week, Representatives Ro Khanna and Thomas Massie introduced a discharge petition which will force the speaker of the House to bring up a bill for a floor vote that he really doesn't want to. The bill would force the Justice Department -- with a hard 30-day deadline -- to release all the remaining Epstein files (with victims' names redacted, of course).

When it was introduced, the discharge petition needed six Republicans to sign it, to reach the majority threshold of 218 signatures. Four immediately did so -- which left the petition two signatures short. But the House isn't static. There are vacancies. And these vacancies are filled by special elections, one of which happened this Tuesday. Here's what happened:

Democrat James Walkinshaw handily won a recent special election in Virginia's 11th Congressional District and was sworn into office on Wednesday to fill the vacant House seat previously held by Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Virginia), who died in May.

Walkinshaw, who was most recently a Fairfax County supervisor and previously served as Connolly's chief of staff, emerged from a crowded Democratic primary and was widely expected to win Tuesday's race against Republican Stewart Whitson. Still, Virginia Department of Elections data indicate that Walkinshaw won by a record margin in a general election for the 11th District, and he had one of the largest margins ever for a winner from any party.

Unofficial results showed that, as of Wednesday morning, Walkinshaw had 74.8 percent of the vote to Whitson's 25 percent, with write-in candidates receiving some votes.

As always, since it was a special election, caveats apply. This is a solid-blue safe Democratic district, in the Northern Virginia suburbs of Washington. Turnout was low (as it is in most special elections), from 26 to 28 percent of eligible voters. However, Kamala Harris only won the district by 66 percent to 31 percent against Trump, so a 3-to-1 victory is at least notable. But the main reason why this can't be seen as any sort of bellwether (outside of Northern Virginia) is that the district has a very high percentage of federal workers and contractors (8 percent of the total workforce), who have been hit very hard by both Donald Trump and Elon Musk's chainsaw.

A win is a win, however, no matter what it means for the bigger picture. And this win means that the split in the House went from 219 Republicans to 212 Democrats, up to 213 Democrats. And one of the first things newly-sworn-in Representative James Walkinshaw did was to sign the Epstein files discharge petition.

This changes the math. Up until now, only four Republicans had signed on -- Massie and three others. That looked stalled -- Donald Trump had leaned on enough of the other GOP members that the petition looked like it would fall two votes short.

But now it's only one vote short.

There are still three other vacancies in the House. One of them is a safe Republican seat, but the other two are safe Democratic seats. And one of these is up for a special election later this month (on the 23rd). So if Democrats hold onto the seat vacated by the death of Raúl Grijalva in Arizona, then the petition will get its 218th signature. Stay tuned, folks....

Democrats coalesce around red line for government shutdown

The plan is still a little hazy around the edges, but it is looking like Democrats in Congress are close to agreeing on what their red line should be for the upcoming budget negotiations (which could result in a government shutdown at the start of next month).

Health care is what they've settled on, and specifically the extension of the Obamacare insurance subsidies that are (as things stand) scheduled to expire at the end of this year (these increased subsidies were passed in 2021 as part of the fight against the COVID pandemic). Here is one high-ranking Democrat's report on the emerging strategy:

Top congressional Democrats have agreed on what they will demand of GOP leaders in return for voting to extend government funding this month: Any shutdown-averting deal needs to include health care provisions such as an extension of soon-to-expire insurance subsidies, one top lawmaker said.

Rep. Richard Neal of Massachusetts, the House's top Democratic tax writer, described that ultimatum following a private huddle with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and other party leaders.

"They're on board" with the strategy, Neal said in an interview about Senate Democrats, including Schumer.

. . .

Neal argued that Congress can't wait much longer to avert the expiration of enhanced tax subsidies that help about 20 million of Americans afford health care plans offered on exchanges created by the Affordable Care Act. People who receive that assistance are already being notified that the tax subsidies will end later this year, he said, with open enrollment for health insurance beginning in November.

"So you can have this huge spike in health care costs coupled with the subtraction of health care for millions of Americans," Neal said, referring to Medicaid cuts in the GOP domestic policy bill passed in July. "And we have broad agreement that the health of the American people should be paramount in this debate."

As mentioned, however, the strategy hasn't exactly been finalized. The big question that remains is whether this will be all Democrats demand, or whether they might also try to roll back all the Medicaid cuts Republicans passed in Trump's big ugly budget bill (which would be a much steeper hill to climb, one assumes).

There is some political logic to both of these, but arguments can be made on either side of them. In the first place, more than a few Republicans were already considering bringing up a bill on their own to extend the Obamacare subsidies. These (mostly) swing-district Republicans realized that a whole lot of their own constituents would be kicked off their health insurance if nothing changes, and that Republicans might wind up paying a political price for this happening at the beginning of a midterm election year. Democrats making this demand saves Republicans from having this fight within their own ranks, so it can be seen as somewhat of a political gift to these moderate-district Republicans. But at the same time, the problem is pretty immediate and Democrats really don't want to just shrug their shoulders and watch Republicans fail to extend the subsidies. It might help Democrats politically in the midterms, but at the price of a whole lot of unnecessary misery (which most Democrats would consider too high a price to allow to happen).

However, the same logic doesn't exactly apply for the Medicaid cuts. These were mostly back-ended, so they won't actually take place until after the midterms -- so the crisis isn't as immediate. And this is also a very powerful political issue for the midterms, which Republicans know (and already fear). Democrats are already making a lot of political hay over the issue already, and voters are responding.

The other open question is more technical, amounting to: "When should we have this fight?" Right now, some Republicans are talking about introducing a "clean" continuing resolution bill which would kick the shutdown deadline to late November (instead of the first of October). Because it would be a "clean" bill, it would just put the budget on autopilot and not be filled with all sorts of odious Republican "poison pill" agenda items. So Democrats forcing the whole fight now (refusing to vote for the clean continuing resolution) might not be the best way to go. If the Democrats wait for the real budget battle (in November) then they can contrast their demand with the Republicans larding up their budget bill with all sorts of outrageous things. That's an easier political fight to win, obviously.

We'll see how other Democrats react to this proposal, no matter when it is scheduled for. For some, this might not be enough -- Trump is dismantling and destroying all sorts of different parts of the federal government, so some Democrats might be more inclined to ask for more than just Obamacare subsidy extensions. But at least, for the time being, a strategy of some sort is emerging. That is a good sign that Democrats are planning for a fight this time around rather than not fighting at all.

-- Chris Weigant

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant