What voters need to bring to the polls for Kentucky primary election

Thousands of voters will head to the polls in Kentucky on May 19 for the state's primary elections.

Those planning to cast a ballot will need to have proof of identification to do so. This includes one of the following:

• Kentucky driver's license

• Kentucky-issued ID card

• U.S. military ID card

• College ID card

• Kentucky government ID

• U.S. passport

• U.S. passport card 

Other IDs might be accepted if they meet the following criteria listedhere.

Advertisement

Those without a valid photo ID can still cast a ballot in the election, but there are additional requirements.

A voter will need to complete a voter affirmation form at their polling location and provide an alternative form of identification. Acceptable documents include:

• A Social Security card.

• An ID issued by a Kentucky county that shows the voter’s name and has been approved by the State Board of Elections.

• Any card with the voter’s name and photograph.

• A food stamp ID card, Electronic Benefit Transfer card or Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program card that shows the voter’s name.

Anew lawpassed by the Kentucky General Assembly in March removes Social Security cards and SNAP cards as options, but the provision does not go into effect until July.

This article originally appeared on Louisville Courier Journal:What Kentucky voters need to bring to the polls for primary election

byCristiano Ronaldo

in

May 19, 2026

What voters need to bring to the polls for Kentucky primary election

Thousands of voters will head to the polls in Kentucky on May 19 for the state's primary elections. Those planning to cast a ...

Read More

Loss of US tidal wetlands accelerates, with Louisiana hardest hit

By Will Dunham

WASHINGTON, May 19 (Reuters) - The loss of tidal wetlands - fragile coastal ecosystems continually flooded and drained by the ebb and flow of ocean tides - is accelerating in the United States, with Louisiana hit the hardest, though they are actually expanding in California, according ‌to research based on decades of satellite data.

Researchers said the United States lost about 7.5% of its tidal wetlands - roughly 400,000 acres (162,000 hectares) - from ‌1985 to 2023, as shown by satellite observations along U.S. coastlines, excluding Alaska and Hawaii.

Gradual changes such as rising sea levels accounted for about 60% of the total losses, the researchers said. But ​the acceleration in losses, they said, is being driven more dominantly by another factor - increasingly intense and frequent hurricanes and other extreme weather events that can ravage these ecosystems.

Thanks to conservation efforts, human factors such as construction of buildings and roads - offset by tidal wetland restoration efforts - now account for only a small share of losses, about 4%, they said.

"The findings show that existing conservation policies have helped reduce direct human conversion, but they are not sufficient to protect tidal wetlands from accelerating climate-driven pressures," said ‌Zhe Zhu, a professor of remote sensing and director of ⁠the Global Environmental Remote Sensing Laboratory at the University of Connecticut's Department of Natural Resources and the Environment, senior author of the study published on Tuesday in the journal Nature Communications.

"Essentially, the continuous stressor of sea-level rise pushes the ecosystem to the ⁠brink, making it highly vulnerable, and the acute extreme events can act as the fatal trigger for abrupt, large-scale loss," Zhu said.

Tidal wetlands are coastal ecosystems in the intertidal zone, the area between the highest high tide and the lowest low tide. They include tidal marshes, mangrove forests and tidal flats. Their dense vegetation and muddy soils protect against ​shoreline erosion ​and damage from storm surges, among other benefits.

Advertisement

In 2023, the continental United States had about ​4.9 million acres (2 million hectares) of tidal wetlands, about 81% ‌of which were tidal marshes, 12% mangrove forests and 7% tidal flats, the researchers said.

"Tidal wetland loss is not happening consistently across the country. The Gulf Coast is losing tidal wetlands at the highest rate due to high relative sea level rise and increasing extreme weather in the region. In San Francisco Bay, however, tidal wetland area is actually increasing. This is thanks to ongoing efforts to restore and protect tidal wetlands and the natural lack of hurricanes," Zhu said.

California's tidal wetlands grew by about 16.7%.

Most U.S. tidal wetlands are concentrated along the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic Coast. At the state level, Louisiana has by far the largest ‌tidal wetland area, and experienced the largest loss, shrinking by 16.6% over the study period. ​Among other major tidal wetland states, Florida lost about 2.1%, Texas 3.7%, South Carolina 1.6% and ​Georgia 1.1% over the study period.

The Gulf Coast region as a whole ​lost about 382,000 acres (154,700 hectares) of tidal wetlands over the study period, with tidal marsh loss dominating this decline. Mangrove forests are ‌expanding their reach, replacing tidal marshes in some parts of ​Florida, Louisiana and Texas because they are ​better adapted to handle sea level rise and extreme weather events.

But while the total area covered by mangrove forests remained steady, that statistical stability is misleading, the researchers said.

"Mangroves are expanding northward as winters warm, especially into areas formerly occupied by tidal marsh, but this expansion is offset by severe ​dieback from hurricanes and extreme freeze events in southern ‌Florida," said study lead author Xiucheng Yang, a senior research fellow at the University of Victoria in Canada.

The Atlantic Coast experienced smaller losses ​than the Gulf Coast, but its loss trajectory is accelerating, the researchers said. By contrast, the Pacific Coast has held up better, ​registering net gains in tidal wetland area.

(Reporting by Will Dunham, Editing by Rosalba O'Brien)

byCristiano Ronaldo

in

May 19, 2026

Loss of US tidal wetlands accelerates, with Louisiana hardest hit

By Will Dunham WASHINGTON, May 19 (Reuters) - The loss of tidal wetlands - fragile coastal ecosystems continually flooded and dra...

Read More

Exclusive-India to monitor Boeing fuel-switch test tied to Air India London incident, documents show

By Aditya Kalra and Abhijith Ganapavaram

FILE PHOTO: Wings India 2026 in Hyderabad

NEW DELHI, May 19 (Reuters) - Indian air safety officials plan to travel to Seattle to observe Boeing's testing of a fuel-control switch panel that was removed from an Air India 787 in February after the pilots on a London-Bengaluru flight flagged a possible defect, according to documents seen by ‌Reuters.

The testing, described by Indian officials as "sensitive", renews the spotlight on the switches on Boeing Dreamliners that regulate the flow of jet fuel into a plane's engines as investigators ‌prepare a final report into an Air India 787 crash that killed 260 people in Gujarat last June.

The switches, designed to be immovable without specific actions from pilots, have come under scrutiny since the preliminary report into the crash found ​they had been shut off nearly simultaneously, starving the engines of fuel.

During the February incident in London, the pilots observed during the engine start that the fuel switches did not remain fixed in the "run" position on the first two attempts when light vertical pressure was applied but were stable on a third try before takeoff, India's Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) said previously.

UK authorities investigated the incident, but Boeing privately told Air India in February the module containing the fuel switches was found to be "serviceable," according to an email seen by Reuters. The DGCA had said the switches passed checks.

The module was nevertheless ‌sent to a Boeing facility in Seattle for testing, according to confidential ⁠emails seen by Reuters being reported for the first time.

As "the matter is sensitive in nature, Air India is hereby directed to ensure that the strip/test examination at OEM's (Boeing) premises is carried out in the presence of a DGCA officer," Manish Kumar, a DGCA deputy director of airworthiness, wrote in his ⁠March 9 email.

While it is not unusual for planemakers to perform such analyses for airline customers, the email did not explain why India's regulator considered the matter sensitive and insisted on attending.

In a statement, Air India said the module was confirmed as "fully functional" by Boeing and the DGCA, but the decision to proceed with further testing is "understood to be intended to ensure a thorough and conclusive evaluation ... as a measure of abundant caution."

The ​additional ​testing "involves examination in a controlled laboratory environment to definitively confirm its performance and integrity," said Air India, which ​is owned by the Tata Group and Singapore Airlines.

The DGCA, Kumar and ‌Boeing did not respond to Reuters' queries.

Advertisement

INDIA PLANS JUNE VISIT TO BE 'THOROUGH'

The U.S. Federal Aviation Administration, which regulates Boeing aircraft, has said last year's Air India crash, the world's deadliest in a decade, does not appear to have been caused by a mechanical issue.

Recorded dialogue between the two pilots on the flight suggested that the captain cut the flow of fuel to the engines while the first officer was flying the plane, Reuters reported last year citing a source briefed on U.S. officials' early assessment.

Such a prospect was denounced by a pilots' union in India and the captain's father, who called for an independent investigation to look into other causes.

Under international rules, a final report into the crash from India's Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau is due next month, and if that is ‌not achievable, an interim update is required. The AAIB did not respond to a request for comment.

In relation ​to the February incident in London, the testing of the switch module is due to take place in June, the ​emails showed, around the time of the anniversary of last year's crash.

The DGCA now ​wants to examine the switch's locking mechanism, including whether external pressure applied at a particular angle could move it when locked, said an Indian government official ‌explaining the reasoning behind the Seattle visit.

The Indian government "wants to be thorough", ​the official said on condition of anonymity because the ​matter is sensitive.

Air India is paying for the trip, which will have two DGCA officials travel to the Boeing facility, said another source familiar with the matter.

While the DGCA said publicly in February the switches "were checked and found satisfactory", the UK Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) queried the airline at the time to understand why the pilots took off with the ​alleged defect and reported the incident only on landing.

Air India at the ‌time told the CAA the unit was found serviceable, one of the emails showed. The CAA did not respond to Reuters' queries.

Boeing has said it issued a ​service bulletin after the February flight to all 787 operators reminding them of existing procedures, but it did not issue new guidance.

(Reporting by Aditya Kalra and Abhijith Ganapavaram; ​Additional reporting by Allison Lampert in Montreal and Dan Catchpole in Seattle; Editing by Jamie Freed)

byCristiano Ronaldo

in

May 19, 2026

Exclusive-India to monitor Boeing fuel-switch test tied to Air India London incident, documents show

By Aditya Kalra and Abhijith Ganapavaram FILE PHOTO: Wings India 2026 in Hyderabad NEW DELHI, May 19 (Reuters) - I...

Read More

The Late Show with Stephen Colbert takes its final bow | The Excerpt

On the Monday, May 18, 2026, episode of The Excerpt podcast:Late‑night TV has long served as a shared end‑of‑day ritual, shaping political and cultural conversation. With “The Late Show with Stephen Colbert” coming to an end, questions remain about the viability of traditional late-night TV. USA TODAY TV Critic Kelly Lawler joins The Excerpt to discuss what the show’s finale says about the future of late‑night television.

Hit play on the player below to hear the podcast and follow along with the transcript beneath it.This transcript was automatically generated, and then edited for clarity in its current form. There may be some differences between the audio and the text.

Podcasts:True crime, in-depth interviews and more USA TODAY podcasts right here

Dana Taylor:

For decades, late night television has provided us with a shared end of the day ritual made up of monologues and jokes that shape our political conversations. Well, Stephen Colbert didn't invent late night TV, he sharpened it. Last July, when Colbert announced the end of the Late Show franchise on CBS, many wondered what happens when shows that function as cultural town squares begin to disappear?

Hello and welcome to USA TODAY's The Excerpt. I'm Dana Taylor. Today is Monday, May 18th, 2026. Joining me to discuss rising production costs, shifts in viewing preferences, and the demise of one of the pillars of late night television is USA TODAY TV Critic Kelly Lawler. It's good to have you here, Kelly.

Kelly Lawler:

Thank you so much for having me.

Dana Taylor:

Kelly, this might seem like a strange question following his more than a decade as host of the Late Show, but who is Stephen Colbert?

Kelly Lawler:

Yeah, I mean, Stephen Colbert is one of the biggest names in American comedy. He got his start in improv along with a lot of other comedians in Gen X who are household names like Amy Poehler and a lot of people from SNL. And he first came to real national attention as a correspondent on The Daily Show when Jon Stewart was the host full-time in the early 2000's. And he had a character and that character was very influenced by the politics of the time by the George W. Bush era Republican Party. And that character was named Stephen Colbert, but it wasn't the man himself. And he was so popular satirizing the conservative right at the time that he was eventually given his own show on Comedy Central, The Colbert Report, not Report. And that was followed Jon Stewart. The two kind of marched together in this heyday of Comedy Central late night television.

When David Letterman decided in 2015 that he was going to retire from the Late Show, CBS picked Colbert, who was already in the CBS family, Comedy Central and CBS have been owned by the same parent company for a long time. And he's been reinvented on the Late Show as Stephen Colbert the person instead of Stephen Colbert, the character.

Dana Taylor:

As I mentioned, this is about more than the end of Stephen Colbert's run as host of the show. Can you briefly touch on the highlights of the iconic Late Night Show, moments that help define it like David Letterman's top 10 list, for example, and then how Colbert also helped shape that legacy.

Kelly Lawler:

Yeah. The Late Show was created for David Letterman. In the early 1990's, Johnny Carson, who had hosted The Tonight Show on NBC, really the foundational program for this kind of genre of television and he was retiring. And David Letterman had been at NBC for a long time hosting Late Night, which aired after the Tonight Show and had made a name for himself doing this kind of wacky experimental comedy that worked really well at that hour of the night. And when Carson retired, NBC picked Jay Leno to host The Tonight Show, which massively offended David Letterman. There was a very well publicized fight. There has been books written about it. There was an HBO TV movie about it.

But what ended up happening is that Letterman went to CBS. They created the Late Show for him and he competed with Leno at the time slot and he won for a while, but over the course of their competing years in late night, the Tonight Show still kind of won out. But Letterman's Late Show was a lot different than Late Night. It was much more mainstream. His most famous bits were the top 10 list, as you mentioned, which he did pretty much every night of top 10 something that was relevant to the news or something happening in pop culture at the time. Stupid pet tricks was one of his biggest sketches, which is exactly what it sounds like and he made it work in a way that was not so stupid.

Some of the biggest moments in his career, people think of Drew Barrymore jumping up on his desk when she was in the early part of her adult career. They think of Joaquin Phoenix doing that very strange interview with the beard and the sunglasses when he was doing the publicity stunt for his movie, I'm Still Here. And you think of how that influenced Letterman's career, otherwise he hosted the Oscars because of the success of that show and he handed it off to Colbert and Letterman was a very Hollywood guy. He came up through that LA style of comedy and he was really concerned with actors, actresses and the way that show business was going.

Colbert's comedy was political. He came from Comedy Central's The Colbert Report and The Daily Show. And even though he was no longer pretending to be a right-wing conservative pundit, he was political and that's the brand that CBS hired when they hired him. And so he took the Late Show and he made it more political. His monologues were more of the monologue was taken up by politics than in Letterman's era. More of the bits are about politics. And Colbert, the direction of his show was really shaped by where politics were going.

Donald Trumpwas elected in 2016 for the first time and all of late night comedy was shifted into commenting on him every single night, but it didn't really stop during the intervening Biden administration. So Colbert gets called out as political all the time, but it is what CBS bought and paid for when they hired him.

Dana Taylor:

Kelly, we'll get to the money in a moment, but first political commentary has long been a part of late night television. The timing of the cancellation came shortly after Colbert criticized Paramount for settling a lawsuit brought by President Donald Trump. How clear is it what role, if any, that criticism played in the decision to cancel a legacy show?

Kelly Lawler:

Paramount in their official statements has denied that there was any consideration for politics as to the reason they canceled the program. None of us can know who weren't in the room. I will say that the context around his cancellation wasn't just the fact that he had criticized Paramount's settlement with Donald Trump at the time. Paramount was in the middle of trying to get a merger approved by the Trump administration with Skydance Entertainment. That merger has since gone through and not only were they trying to get the merger approved, Skydance is headed by David Ellison, who is the son of Larry Ellison, CEO of Oracle and a major Trump donor.

So when you're talking about the politics, there's much more than any one thing Colbert could have said about his parent company or about Donald Trump. People involved in making the decisions for the future of CBS have their own political affiliations. And again, we're not in the room. I can't tell you exactly why, but I can tell you that all of this is swirling around as the show is nearing its end.

Advertisement

Dana Taylor:

You've written about our deep and meaningful history when it comes to political comedy, satire and commentary. Can you speak to the role of political comedy in American society?

Kelly Lawler:

I think political comedy is foundational to American society. We think of Benjamin Franklin's join or die political cartoon as something serious, but political cartoons are a comedic part of American tradition. And there's Mark Twain. There's Johnny Carson himself in the mid-20th century and Bob Hope, who we think of as gentle, warm entertainers, but who had a lot of sharp things to say about the politics of the time. They're just not our politics. So we forget those joke of the days when the days are so many decades in the past.

I think political comedy isn't going anywhere. Colbert may leave CBS at 11:35, but he has a big career ahead of him. His peers have found new and old life. Jon Stewart is back hosting The Daily Show once a week. John Oliver has a show on HBO has a very different business model and a very different model for the show.

I think we're at definitely an inflection and evolution point. I think what happens over the next year or so will kind of determine the overall direction of this important pillar of entertainment and politics.

Dana Taylor:

Now to the economics of late night talk shows. Paramount was losing reported $40 million a year. They said the reason for the cancellation was quote purely financials. Anyone seriously arguing now that money wasn't a major or even the decisive factor here?

Kelly Lawler:

I mean, lots of television shows lose money all the time is really the big deal. Yes, it's probably been losing money. The longer a TV show of any kind, late night, episodic, or prime time, daytime. The longer they go on, the more expensive they get because the talent is able to negotiate higher salaries in their contracts. Everyone quotes the famous statistic that in the final season of Friends, the cast of six was making a million dollars per episode and that was in '90s money. And so yes, Colbert's salary goes up. Everyone who works with him, their salary goes up, the writers, the producers. Everything gets more expensive the longer it goes on.

The Tonight Show has been going on with Jimmy Fallon for a little more than Colbert's tenure. Late night with Seth Meyers has been going on for that long. There are other cost-cutting measures that can be made. One thing is dropping Friday nights, one thing is dropping a band. So I would argue that it cannot possibly be a purely economic decision because economics is more complicated than green lighting or canceling a show in our current media landscape. Late night ratings are going down. YouTube, TikTok are all peeling away viewers who want that kind of news of the day commentary, but I don't think we can argue that the genre is completely unviable in our current day and age because they aren't all falling like dominoes. Jimmy Kimmel has survived a major scandal and his show is still on the air.

Dana Taylor:

Well, you mentioned Kimmel. You also mentioned Fallon, both still on the air hosting late night comedy shows. But if a top rated show like the Late Show can't sustain itself financially, are we seeing clear evidence of a broader structural collapse of the traditional late night model?

Kelly Lawler:

I mean, it's totally possible. It's easier to cancel a second show after our first show's been canceled. Hollywood is very influenced by peer pressure. And also if NBC has been wanting to cancel The Tonight Show, for instance, it's easier to say, "Well, look, they canceled Late Show over at CBS. It's just not a viable genre anymore." I don't think that's what's happening. We haven't seen signs from the executives talking to the press. We haven't heard rumors or inklings of more cancellations on the way right now. In the next five years, I wouldn't be surprised if late night was replaced with something else, but I also wouldn't be surprised if it was still going and I wouldn't be surprised if CBS changed its mind and hired someone else to do something similar but not the same as Late Show.

Dana Taylor:

Kelly, has Colbert publicly discussed what comes next for him?

Kelly Lawler:

No, and I think that's the number one question he's going to get from friends, family, any reporters he ever talks to until he does announce something. I think he has a lot of options. If I were a Hollywood executive anywhere that wasn't Paramount, I would be talking to him. I would be offering him loads and loads of cash to come where I am because he's only going to get more popular after he leaves. CBS is a platform, but personalities are what builds brands in Hollywood right now. And there's social media, yes, which is eating into late night audience, but it allows Colbert's fans to follow him wherever he goes and that will be valuable to someone.

Dana Taylor:

Kelly Lawler is a TV critic for USA TODAY. Thank you so much for sharing your insights here, Kelly.

Kelly Lawler:

Thank you for having me.

Dana Taylor:

Thanks for listening. I'm Dana Taylor. What story would you like to hear next? You can tell us at podcasts@usatoday.com.

This article originally appeared on USA TODAY:Stephen Colbert’s final week marks the end of The Late Show | The Excerpt

byCristiano Ronaldo

in

May 18, 2026

The Late Show with Stephen Colbert takes its final bow | The Excerpt

On the Monday, May 18, 2026, episode of The Excerpt podcast:Late‑night TV has long served as a shared end‑of‑day ritual, shaping politi...

Read More

Andy Grammer and Wife Aijia Announce They're Expecting Baby No. 3 with Hilarious Music Video: 'Miss Barfy Barf'

Andy Grammer and wife Aijia announced their third pregnancy with funny music video featuring Aijia rapping about her struggles with pregnancy nausea and sickness

NEED TO KNOW

• The couple, married since 2012, are already parents to daughters Louie, 8, and Izzy, 6

• Aijia previously experienced hyperemesis gravidarum during pregnancy and used a Zofran pump to manage severe nausea and sickness

Andy Grammerand his wife Aijia are expecting baby number three — and it’s another girl!

The couple, who tied the knot in July 2012, announced the news onInstagramon Sunday, May 17, via a hilarious music video.

The video, shot byDr. Clips, begins with Aijia, 39, showing off her bare bump as she sits on a bed holding aZofran pump(used to treat severe nausea and vomiting in pregnancy) as it makes a repetitive sound.

“Did I just break this Zofran pump?” Aijia asks. “Wait … Andy!” she continues as the tune begins playing again.

“What?” musician Grammer, 42, says as he appears in shot.

‘We should sample this!” adds singer Aijia.

“Let’s do it,” Andy continues as he holds a mic up to the pump to record the sound.

“Everything smells like rotten chicken, got a lot of clothes but nothing fittin’ / Got a lot to do but I just stay sittin’,” Aijia raps.

Aijia then details her pregnancy sickness as she pretends to vomit into a toilet and photos of her in the hospital during her previous pregnancies flash up on the screen.

“Miss Barfy Barf, yeah you know me / Sick again, yeah three for three," Aijia raps, before sharing that she was adamant she would be done at two children.

Advertisement

“I swore I wasn’t gon’ do it, last time would be the last time,” Aijia sings while lying on the couple’s piano as her husband plays. “I didn’t wanna go through it, knocked up is not a fun vibe / I’m sat sick here on the couch now, yeah I think I hate all men, but for a little girl, here we go again!”

As the camera zoomed in on Aijia’s bare bump, the camera then switched to the couple being joined by their two children, who were wearing animal masks, as the family jumped up and down on a couch while Grammer held a series of sonograms.

“Here we go again!” the family chanted together.

Never miss a story — sign up forPEOPLE's free daily newsletterto stay up-to-date on the best of what PEOPLE has to offer, from celebrity news to compelling human interest stories.

“We were trying to make music and accidentally made another girl! 😁💗,” the couple captioned the joint Instagram post. “🎥@drclips#BabyAnnouncement#BabyGirlGrammer#comingsoon.”

“Omg!!! This is incredible ! Congrats 🎉🎊🍾,” wrote Derek Hough in the comments section, while his wife Hayley Erbert Hough added, “This is the best announcement ever!! So excited for you guys!! 💛💛.”

Grammar and Aijia are already parents to daughtersLouisiana “Louie” K, 8, andIsrael “Izzy” Blue, 6.

Aijiawelcomed Izzy via a home birthin 2020, while Louie was born via cesarean section in 2017.

During her second pregnancy, Grammar revealed to PEOPLE that she was suffering from hyperemesis gravidarum — a pregnancy complication that causes severe nausea — and shared that she was once again using a Zofran pump.

Read the original article onPeople

byCristiano Ronaldo

in

May 18, 2026

Andy Grammer and Wife Aijia Announce They're Expecting Baby No. 3 with Hilarious Music Video: 'Miss Barfy Barf'

Andy Grammer and wife Aijia announced their third pregnancy with funny music video featuring Aijia rapping about her struggles with pre...

Read More