out there and protest, it's not to cause a problem. it's to end a problem. that's the problem in gaza. something like this is not going to stop me from standing up for my people. >> we reached out to a public defender for burt james baker. he declined to comment. >> thank you very much for that important piece. "cnn this morning" continues now. trump engaged in insurrection and cannot appear on the ballot. >> frankly, president trump didn't engage. he didn't carry a pitch fork to the capitol grounds. >> this case, which a lot of people saw as a long-shot case, is a very strong case. we have every expectation that the supreme court will take this very seriously.

>> good morning. so glad you are with us. very consequential day. we are two hours away from the supreme court colliding head on with the presidential election. the justices will hear arguments in a massively consequential case today. can donald trump be thrown off the ballot for his role in the deadly january 6th attack on the capitol? that question has made its way to the highest court in the land after colorado's supreme court ruled trump engaged in a resurrection and is disqualified from being president again under the 14th amendment which bars insurrectionists and those that help them from serving. >> there are key questions the supreme court is facing today. does it apply to trump and the presidency? it was ratified to block ex-confederates from holding office. did trump engage in an insurrection? >> we saw the blood attack on

the capitol when a mob of trump supporters stormed the capitol. the colorado supreme court cited trump own words at a rally right before the insurrection. >> we're going to walk down to the capitol. you will never take back our country with weakness. you have to show strength. you have to be strong. we fight like hell. if you don't fight like hell, you are not going to have a country anymore. >> it's a significant day. team coverage throughout the day. let's start off in washington. when it comes to washington we're going to listen to today, what are the key points? how big of a test is this for chief justice john roberts? >> this is one of the days and one of the cases that will define the roberts court going forward. it's not just john roberts up there with the other justices

asking questions today. they all will be grappling with the history of the 14th amendment, how it came to be after the civil war, an in insurrectionist ban. they also will be looking at the future, the future of the presidency. that office, how to define that office. they will look at the constitution, of course, what it says about the presidency. if you step back for a second, there's a big question here that both sides have to tackle. can states do this? can colorado make the decision within themselves by their supreme court? can other states do similar things to take a candidate off the ballot? in this case, donald trump on the 2024 primary ballot in colorado. trump's attorneys say if states can do this, it will unleash chaos and bedlam across the country. there are others, voters from colorado as well as the

secretary of state in colorado who will be arguing that, yes, colorado can do this. they can apply the law in this way if they choose. there have been lots of people who have popped up in the court to submit their portions of the arguments. in those briefs, there are people like other states saying, please clarify this so we know what to do across the country. this isn't just about colorado. as we watch the justices today, they're going to look at these big questions. one person up there, jackson, she had to deal with january 6 rioters when she was on a lower court. one thing that she was saying at the time was that if there was a more serious offense in terms of who we are as a society and the democratic order that is at the core of our constitutional scheme, i don't know what is. that's her commentary on the insurrection of january 6. i will watch closely to see if

the justices go closely to that idea of insurrection and if donald trump can apply or be called an insurrectionist in this case. >> that's a really interesting point about what she said in a previous case. i think we just learned that trump will speak today from mar-a-lago? he won't be at the supreme court. what's your reporting on what he will say today? >> good morning. we're not sure what he is going to say. we are sure he is going to make some kind of remarks from mar-a-lago. of course, we will be covering that. this is a difference from what we have seen in several of his other civil cases. he has been in new york for the e. jean carroll and the new york civil fraud case. he is not attending the supreme court case. i'm told this sin tis intention. there were some people who didn't believe that donald trump's outbursts in court, his storming out of the court, were helpful to him in either of those cases.

the legal team is taking a different approach. they were practicing their remarks. we know that they were in constant touch with the former president, going back and forth. it wasn't a formal decision until yesterday evening that donald trump was definitely not going to come. they have all agreed that it was better for him not to be in the room. not for the strange dynamic as well. he would look at a bench of which he appointed one-third of the justices sitting there. the other thing to note is this is the juggling act we are seeing between the politics and the legal. after he delivers remarks, he is getting open a plane and going to nevada where he is expected to win the caucuses there. again, all of this juxtaposition, coming together at once. the one takeaway here is that it's clear they are trying a different approach to the supreme court arguments, to the highest court in the land. >> it's going to be so fascinating. thank you both. see you throughout the day during our special coverage.

trump's attorneys have argued removing his name from the state ballot would, quote, disenfranchise millions of americans. listen to what one of the opposing attorneys told erin burnett. >> this is the farthest thing from anti-democratic. last time president trump was on the ballot, he ignored the will of 80 million u.s. voters. summoned a mob to attack the capitol during the otherwise peaceful transition of presidential power. section 3 of the 14th amendment is one of the few self-defense mechanisms the constitution has to ensure our democracy remains viable. >> joining us is trump's defense lawyer during the second impeachment trial. i appreciate you being here. a point of fact, you have been arguing cases like this for a long time. not exactly the same, but about access to being on the ballot. you have at one point represented the national

democratic party. i'm glad you are here this morning. you say you can guarantee trump prevails. why? >> well, trump will prevail in the case. if civil libertarians have their way, in my view. every civil libertarian ought to support his position. it's a matter of process. there are arguments. whether it applies to a president or vice president since they are not named. whether a president is an officer. there's cases that suggest they are not. those kinds of arguments are interesting. the 14th amendment itself requires it be overturned. due process. the 14th amendment incorporates the 5th and 6th amendment. for example here, either section 3 is self-executing or it isn't. we have this griffins case from 1869 that says it isn't. it requires federal legislation in order to apply this section. whether that's required or not,

he was being -- using this section to circumvent his civil rights is inappropriate. what i mean is this. we have a federal statute, insurrection. they had every opportunity to charge him with that. they never did. they never even presented to a grand jury because they couldn't make out probable cause. if they had, you would have all of the 5th and 6th amendment rights available. all of those rights. he doesn't have those with just a made up process here. then who decides? is it just a non-lawyer in maine, secretary of state? is it a judge in colorado? that's a matter of due process to get notice of what the charges are, all of those things. as a matter of process, it's an easy case. libertarian ought to hope it's overturned. >> i find this a fascinating argument. when you talk about enforcement, there's section 5.

we will see how that plays out. congress is the one that has the power to enforce. that would be against the argument of self-execution. the other thing that's interesting to me is the colorado supreme court had a finding of law. but then they had a finding of fact. it was he did engage in an insurrection. do you think the supreme court takes up that argument at all, that this was or wasn't engaging in an insurrection? do they bypass that? >> very interesting question. a great question. all of yours always are. first of all, what troubles me most in the colorado decision about the finding of fact is that it relied on the january 6 committee report. i feel strongly that committee is a partisan committee that was ethically checkered in the first place. who makes the finding of fact? under what standard? that's the problem here. what's the definition of insurrection? is it just a single judge who decides and makes these finds of fact? i don't think the court has to get into the finding of fact

that was made and overturn that finding of fact. i don't think they have to determine, did he engage in insurrection or not? >> that's really interesting. what i find to be the most interesting but potentially the most perilous is that the language only bars someone guilty of this from holding office, not from running for office. if trump were to win, do you think that's a wise road for them to go down today? >> that may be the best question of all. i'm shocked that they raise it. a good lawyer recognizes that not every targument ought to be made. there's a brief that makes it also. that may be appropriate. it's an interesting argument. that's a finding from the language. why on earth would president trump's team want to argue that? he wins the election and then afterwards they reinitiate this process of trying to bar him

from holding office and they say, your lawyer said that that's what the language provides? i don't believe for a second the president approved that argument to be made. >> tell me how you would argue this case, david. >> on the process issue, frankly. i think that's an issue all sides ought to coalesce around. nobody in this country wants someone to -- the voters either to lose their 1st and 14th amendment rights or a candidate to stand for election based on a finding by a random state. we know from the 1983 case, landmark ballot access case, states have a lesser interest in national elections because their action affects what goes on in the country. i would argue it on the process question, a matter of due process. don't look beyond the 14th amendment to know this is a denial of rights by circ circumventing safeguards. i think the case ought to be overturned 9-0. >> come back tomorrow. i would love to hear what you

think after we hear the arguments today. appreciate your time. about the arguments today, everyone should listen. we will carry it live right here on cnn. the attorneys argue about the nation's highest court. special coverage begins in less than an hour. we have breaking news on a story we have been talking about, the marines missing after a military helicopter crashed in a forest in southern california white on a flight from nevada. let's go to natasha bertrand. what are we learning? >> reporter: sad news from the marine corps. these five marines who were traveling in that ch-53 from nevada to california on february 6th, that helicopter crashed. they have been confirmed dead by the marines. this is the statement they released. ta the families of our fallen marines, we send our deepest condolences and commit to ensuring your support and care during this incredibly difficult time.

this search and rescue operation had been hampered by very difficult weather conditions, according to sources who spoke to us yesterday. ultimately, they were able to reach the crash site. they found the helicopter in cleveland national forest, just outside of san diego. ultimately, they did find those five marines and have now confirmed they were deceased. the ch-53 helicopter has been involved in a number of ins dents incidents. a training mission, the same type of helicopter, the same model, it crashed in california as well. it killed all of the marines on board. there will be some questions raised about the safety history of this helicopter and whether there needs to be additional investigation into this model. of course, there's probably going to be as well a full investigation of what went wrong here. clearly, a sad day for the marine corps. >> tragic, without question.

to the last point, is there regular process that is in place for those investigations to occur over the course of the coming weeks and months? is that something that will need to be ordered and announced later? >> reporter: typically, when these incidents occur, they do a full investigation of what happened. was it pilot error , was it something that went wrong with the helicopter? when we saw the grounding of the osprey fleet, that involved a full investigation of what has been going on with that particular aircraft to determine whether it is safe to fly. i expect to see a similar kind of probe being conducted in this instance as well. >> natasha bertrand, thank you. the border deal and the senate, it's officially dead. people living near the border, they wonder what's next. >> do you feel like you are kind of helpless as that toxic politics continues to rage in d.c. over this?

>> it's frustrating. there's two different politics working against each other.

just about an hour, senate republicans will hold a closed-door meeting to discuss how to move forward after blocking the border and foreign aid package on the senate floor. a senate procedural vote is expected on a slimmed down portion with the border portion stripped out. it's opposed by republicans against additional aid for ukraine. all of this dysfunction has texas border towns and its residents frustrated and confused as to why politicians aren't willing to work together

to pass legislation that would resolve or help the migrant crisis. ed, this is an important story. talking to actual people, not the fighting back and forth and hyperbole from the politicians in washington. they are on the ground there. what are they telling you? >> reporter: they feel it the most directly and the fastest compared to anyone across the country. eagle pass has garnered outsized attention in this border battle. it's a small city along a 1,900 mile border with mexico. the feeling here is that this city has been turned into a stage for political theater. people are tired of watching that show. the edge of this ranch stretches along 3 1/2 miles of the border looking into mexico. thousands of migrants have come through here. the remnants of discarded clothing are everywhere.

texas authorities have installed miles of fencing and stretches of wire. you are on the frontline of this crisis here on the rio grande. when you see what it looks like around here, what do you make of it when you come out here? >> i mean, it's a bad situation. it's a horrible situation. >> reporter: what he mostly sees is a lot of politicians not willing to work together. he doesn't understand why lawmakers can't pass legislation to resolve the migrant crisis. do you feel like you are kind of helpless as that toxic politics continues to rage in d.c. over this? >> it's frustrating. there's two different politics working against each other. we have one side saying they want do it one way and one side saying they will do it another. that's the separation that we have to come together. >> reporter: eagle pass has become the epicenter of the battle over border security, the stage where the texas republican

governor is in a showdown with the biden administration and federal immigration authorities. >> how long are we going to be going like this? >> reporter: this woman worked as a customs and border protection agent for 14 years. she's become a local republican party activist and is frustrated by the gridlock. >> if we're still going to be on opposite extremes that the republicans want it my way or the highway and democrats are the same way, we're not going to get anywhere. we will get band-aid fix after band-aid fix. >> reporter: she says the border security measures in the senate bill would have been a temporary fix at best. the smugglers would have figured out new ways to get migrants across the river. >> border patrol union is supporting it. >> yes. >> wouldn't you argue at this point that something is better than nothing? >> should we settle for a band-aid instead of a good fix to the issue that has been going on administration after administration? it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this out.

>> reporter: phil, you know, the local state democratic representative wrote a letter to the speaker of the house this week saying that the gridlock in washington is basically leaving cities like eagle pass left to dry and put on the back burner. real sense of the frustration growing along here in border communities. >> what a piece from you, as usual. thank you very much. the tanked border bill is one of a string of losses for republicans that puts clear the dysfunction on full display. we saw the failed impeachment effort against homeland security secretary mayorkas. >> republican lawmakers frustrated to say the least. >> we may have the gavel, but we're not acting like we're in the majority. >> i was embarrassed for our conference, our party. we can do better than we did last night. >> as bad as nancy pelosi was, she knew the votes before it

took place. >> when you have the majority, there's an expectation you will govern. we have struggled with that over and over again. >> we have got to sit down together, figure out how we're going to solve problems, because the american people sent us here to do that. >> with us now, natasha alfred and scott jennings. scott, what's going on with republican leadership? >> good luck, scott. >> good morning. >> go! >> let me unravel this in 30 seconds. the bottom line is that politics is a team support. right now, the republicans aren't acting like a team. there's division over policy in the conference. there's personality divisions, jockeying, ego. all of it is getting in the way of making progress. i don't think the failure of the border bill is as catastrophic as some have portrayed. it's not the first time a bill failed in congress. it won't be the last. they may yet get there on the foreign aid supplemental today,

which would be a step in the right direction. the fact remains, there are huge policy divisions in both conferences. there are huge tactical divisions. right now the republicans are, frankly, at each other's throats, i think, behind the scenes about how to proceed. it's leading to these sort of messy public outcomes or lack of outcomes. >> natasha, to that point, we have been talking about james langford all week. he is a conservative attempting to govern as a conservative, understanding that the senate is led by democrats and the white house is occupied by a democratic president. when it comes to the rest of the party, i'm not sure if there's a centralized theory of the case when it comes to policy, governing, ideas. >> yeah. this is where i agree with scott about republicans being at each other's throats. we watched that package where americans, those people interviewed by ed, are saying, this is about both sides not coming together, wanting to do things a different way.

no. this is about republicans blocking an opportunity where there was bipartisanship. democrats actually compromised. democrats didn't get everything they wanted in that bill. >> they didn't get a lot of what they wanted. >> they were willing to compromise for the good of the american people. when americans say they are disillusioned with government, they don't trust the government to do what's in the best interest of the country, we have seen that faith declining, this is why. >> one note. not all democrats are on board with this. some thought it wasn't progressive enough. i hear your overall argument. scott, you are the mitch mcconnell whisperer. is it fair to me to call you that? >> sure. >> what is your read on what is happening to mitch mcconnell in terms of his influence and his future? >> the conference has changed a lot over the last couple of years. he did -- when he ran for leader this last time, he did have a challenge to his position. he easily dispatched that. the people that you see commenting about him in the press today are the same ones who voted against him before,

ran against him before. it's essentially the same faction. the overall issue is true, and that is that the republican conference has moved a lot and has changed a lot in terms of the policy interests. a lot of that is, of course, driven by the policy views of donald trump. particularly when it comes to ukraine, i think there's probably 15 to 20 republicans available to help move this foreign aid package forward. that's different than it would have been two, four or eight years ago. he is presiding over a conference that's experiencing the same flow in terms of policy preferences that the party at large has experienced. we see that on display really with this vote on funding the war in ukraine. johnson has it just as bad if the ho-- in the house. this debate within the party is raging really in both chambers and all over the country. >> scott, you make an important point. the conference moved in a different direction than leader mcconnell.

you lost roy blunt and rob cor corbett. it became more like the house with actual house members. whether when it comes to the house, do you want to do this anymore? is there anybody better? what i'm trying to figure out is -- i don't understand why they would want to replace him. a challenge makes no sense whatsoever. >> mike johnson knew what he signed up for. he took that opportunity knowing who was pulling the strings in terms of who was in charge. he talked about being on the phone with donald trump a lot these past few weeks. that's the reality. this is donald trump's party. he is pulling the strings from behind the scenes. all of this results in people who are disillusioned. i really think that this was a missed opportunity for the republican party to do the right thing. if you have faith in your policy vision for america, you could allow the biden campaign to have a win on immigration and say, we

still have a better vision on the economy, on all of these other things. i think it reflects a lack of faith in themselves, that they think they need to tank this opportunity to move the country forward just so they can have a win in november. >> interesting. >> natasha, scott, i'm going to need you to forward me all the emails from mcconnell. >> don't hold your breath. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. new information in the investigation into whether president biden handled -- mishandled classified documents. what we are learning. people in iceland are waking up to an erupting volcano for the third time since december. lava is glowing so bright. look at that. people 30 miles away can see it. authorities evacuated the popular blue lagoon spa because of this. a nearby town already evacuated. no one has been hurt.

one year after it began, the investigation into possible mishandling of classified document biz ps by president bi over.

they are now reviewing the final report for possible executive privilege issues. >> i wonder what the biden administration is saying. >> white house aides have been preparing for the release of this report for some time. allies fully anticipate republicans will use this as political ammunition against the president in this election year. the existence of the classified documents from president biden's time as vice president first came to light a little over a year ago. that's when special counsel was appointed to look into whether the biden team mishandled the secret government documents that were found at a private office here in washington, d.c. and at his home in wilmington, delaware. that review is now complete. the attorney general notified lawmakers yesterday. he said eventually they will be providing that report toote, as i have made clear regarding each special counsel who served

since i have taken office, i'm committed to making as much of the special counsel's report public as possible. the white house counsel's office is anticate that review will be concluded by the end of the week. president biden himself sat down for two days of interviews with the special counsel's team, four months ago today. one thing that our reporting has indicated is that the team is not planning to include any criminal charges in this report. it's expected to have a very detailed and critical look at how biden and his advisors handled the secret government documents when he left office. biden's allies anticipate that republicans will try to use this against president biden and try to conflate this incident with former president donald trump's mishandling of classified documents, even though they are incredibly different. biden complied, cooperated with

this investigation as soon as they found these documents, they called the national archives. that's something president biden would likely try to argue. we anticipate the report will be out in the coming days. >> thanks very much. we are minutes away from really an historic oral argument at the supreme court about donald trump's ballot eligibility. our legal experts with us to answer your questions. they are next.

two leading candidates for senate. two very different visions for california. steve garvey, the leading republican, is too conservative for california. he voted for trump twice and supported republicans for years, including far right conservatives. adam schiff, the leading democrat, defended democracy against trump and the insurrectionists. he helped build affordable housing, lower drug costs, and bring good jobs back home. the choice is clear. i'm adam schiff, and i approve this message. this ad? typical. politicians... "he's bad. i'm good." blah, blah. let's shake things up. with katie porter. porter refuses corporate pac money. and leads the fight to ban congressional stock trading. katie porter. taking on big banks to make housing more affordable. and drug company ceos to stop their price gouging. most politicians just fight each other.

while katie porter fights for you. for senate - democrat katie porter. i'm katie porter and i approve this message. we are minutes away from the oral argument at the supreme court as the court takes up the case that will decide if donald trump can be removed from election ballots. trump spoke before today's hearing and said, i can't imagine that a court would take away the vote from millions of people. how do those people -- how does america feel about the prospect of trump getting kicked off the ballot. harry has the numbers. how are americans feeling about the idea of trump getting kicked off the ballot? >> great. it leads into this. we are a 50/50 nation.

not surprisingly here we see the same split. 49% actually support that decision. that goes a little bit against trump's quote. the plurality do support the decision to keep trump off the ballot. 46% here who are opposed. republicans oppose the idea of keeping him off the ballot. democrats support it. interests right down there in the middle. we will be dealing with a supreme court. i think there will be a lot of important decisions coming from the supreme court about the 2024 election or things that could impact it. trust the supreme court to make the right decisions on legal cases related to the 2024 election. this on the other hand is not a 50/50 split. 42% of americans have a great deal or moderate amount of confidence in the court to make the right decision. the majority, 58%, have just some or not at all. i will note, this is something we have seen across the polling data. support for the court, confidence in the court has been

going down, down, down over the last few years based upon some of the decisions. >> i'm not sure which day it was, but the immunity decision by the appeals court. where are americans on immunity? that was steadfast, very significant, very inequivocal. >> they may be split on this idea to keep trump off the ballot but what they are not split on is the idea trump should be immune from prosecution. should trump have immunity for his actions taken while president? 34% of americans say yes. look at this. the vast majority of americans, two-thirds, say no. i think i want to take another step back and note that the decisions that could be coming, the ideas of trump in court could have a mmpt on the election overall. take a look. this is the biden versus trump margin. we have trump plus two. look, if trump is convicted, look at that, biden goes up four. a lot of important decisions

coming from the court. they could have a major impact on how americans view the 2024 election. >> thank you, my friend. we know you probably have a lot of questions about what is going to happen in 25 minutes at the supreme court. joan biskupic is here to answer questions. can trump be prevented from being on all election ballots in 2024? >> it's good to see you and phil. i'm moving closer and closer to the supreme court, since we did this an hour ago. yes, the supreme court is looking specifically at the colorado case and the colorado supreme court decision knocking him off the ballot. however they rule will affect all 50 states. that's why this is being so closely watched. the supreme court's decision will apply everywhere, to maine, which as harry said has tried to keep him off the ballot, even to other states that might be

contemplating that. >> you feel the energy from joan as she gets closer to her second home. >> i know. i'm edging toward the door. >> next question from peter in florida. if you are indicted, are you presumed innocent? if a person is not found guilty, how can they be barred from an election? >> that's an excellent question. that's one that was taken up by the trial judge here in the colorado case. she said in this case, donald trump didn't need to have been actually indicted and convicted of insurrection. there was lots of testimony taken. that trial took a week. some of the evidence presented in the trial came from the january 6 committee and all sorts of evidence from that situation. in this particular case, they are talking about actually a constitutional amendment that bars someone from holding future office who has engaged in an insurrection, the terms are

different. at least that's what both the trial judge in colorado said and the colorado supreme court said. it will be up to the u.s. supreme court now to buy that or not. >> what about this question? trump lawyers say because the 14th amendment doesn't specifically say president that it doesn't pertain to trump. it does say anyone holding office that has sworn an oath to uphold the constitution cannot hold office if they participate in an insurrection. the presidency is the highest office in the usa. this has to make him, being trump, accountable. am i correct? >> you know what? this viewer is asking something that the justices themselves are going to be asking in a few minutes. it sounds kind of hypertechnical given the phrase they will parse is an officer of the united states. that's exactly where the trump lawyers are hanging their money, saying the way that phrase is used in the constitution --

remember, we are talking late 1800s. the way it's used in the constitution, it does not apply to the president because there were other officers named in that section and there's other parts of the constitution that do not treat, quote, officer to encompass the presidency. that's a good question. we will hear a lot about that in just about 35 minutes. >> joan, we are going to watch as you continue to creep closer to the supreme court. we head towards special coverage in 15 minutes. follow that coverage, follow what joan is writing and talking about throughout the day. thank you. today the candidates battling to replace george santos hit the debate stage. the single issue voters say is driving them to the polls in new york. you will meet the men who are helping people heal one note at a time. ♪

. .

a crucial debate happens today in the special election to replace expelled new york congressman george santos, a race that could narrow the republican already slim majority in the house. democrat tom suozzi and republican mazi pill fib will face off in the third congressional district just outside of new york city. the result of tuesday's election could see how some of the voters in the suburbs are feeling. >> cnn's miguel marquez where immigration has been a big issue. what are you hearing? >> immigration is massive. voters voting in early voting i hear a lot of them talking about george santos and how upset they are with him. he made a joke out of the third congressional district and the

trees replace him couldn't be more serious. >> the opening salvo in the 2024 election cycle is on. early voting in the special election to replace george santos. voters are all stripes say more than anything they want moderation and political leaders who will work together. >> was there one motivation that got you to come down here to cast your vote early? >> i want a sane person in the government. i'm done. >> i don't like the direction the country is going currently, and i think it's an important election, and we have to go towards the middle more. >> the issues motivating many voters in this suburban new york largely jewish district, israel, abortion, crime and taxes, but seemingly none bigger than -- >> immigration? how big a concern? >> number one. >> reporter: number one concern for you? >> is it about stopping them coming in or handling the chaos on the border? >> i mean it's both. have you a chaotic situation at

the border. you're spending a ton of money to try to manage the situation. we don't have jobs for the people when they come in. they have being dispersed. we lose complete control of where they are once they are in the country. >> reporter: what would you like to see happen with immigration? >> i don't have the answer, but i know what's happening now isn't good, but we have to figure it out. everyone has to get together and figure it out and talk. >> the district is mostly in nassau county on new york's long island. and a small sliver in queens. total active voters, just over 530,000. in early voting more than 31,000 have already cast their ballots. nassau county where most voters live breaks it down by party giving us a glimpse into who so far is coming out. through four days of voting in nassau, 43% are registered democrats and 35% registered republicans and 19% unaffiliated with any party.

k democrat tom suozzi has run all out raising $5.5 million compared to his republican challenger masi pilip who has raised only $1.3 million. >> tom suozzi will work with both parties. >> reporter: to date suozzi and his allies have nearly doubled pilip and her backers in spending on advertising in the pricey new york market, $13 million to $6.7 million. with the potential rematch looming this november between joe biden and donald trump and congress narrowly divided, voters here in this suburban battleground district see the outcome next tuesday as sending an early message to both parties. >> i would like to see this country united. i do not want to see somebody who is elect that had separates and creates a partition in the country. it's not good for us. >> i think that trump did a heck of a good job. would i vote for him again? that's another question. >> reporter: as a tried and true

republicans who wants to see republicans here, you're not sure if you would vote for donald trump. >> i would rather say i'm not going, to but if he runs i'll have to vote for him. >> reporter: so the other thing to consider here is that turnout is expected to be small, about 25%. the democrats are running up the numbers now in early voting, but republicans, nassau county has machine out there, the republican party. it's expect that had they will get the vote out on election day. we'll see. whoever wins will have -- reverberate throughout the nation. great piece, thank you. >> we can all use a little joy these days, and that's what drives the national music medics. ♪ bless your heart ♪ >> music med vicks been spreading joy with their barber shop music at children's hospital, assisted living facilities and hospice centers for years. >> and not even a pandemic could stop them. thanks to zoom they hardly missed a beat. >> everybody needs some sunshine

in their life. >> to be able to be with respected by bringing a minute a comfort, a minute of piece, a minute of joy, we're able to connect through music. >> you won't find any doctors in the music medics, just some former military and insurance salesmen and a civil engineer united by a common cause, spreading joy through song. ♪ ♪ shooby-doo-wa. >> huge fan, huge continue. >> cnn special coverage of the supreme court hearing on trump's ballot case, it starts after the break. stay with us.

two leading candidates for senate. two very different visions for california. steve garvey, the leading republican, is too conservative for california. he voted for trump twice and supported republicans for years,

including far right conservatives. adam schiff, the leading democrat, defended democracy against trump and the insurrectionists. he helped build affordable housing, lower drug costs, and bring good jobs back home. the choice is clear. i'm adam schiff, and i approve this message. this ad? typical. politicians... "he's bad. i'm good." blah, blah. let's shake things up. with katie porter. porter refuses corporate pac money. and leads the fight to ban congressional stock trading. katie porter. taking on big banks to make housing more affordable. and drug company ceos to stop their price gouging. most politicians just fight each other. while katie porter fights for you. for senate - democrat katie porter. i'm katie porter and i approve this message.