While the overall result has differed, the Vermont map below showcases a similar trend to Massachusetts. As Nathaniel pointed out, Boston and its well-to-do suburbs leaned towards Haley. In Vermont, Haley's strongest results came in areas just across the New Hampshire border from Dartmouth College and in the stretch of land between Montpelier and Burlington, which benefit economically from those population centers and a few prominent ski resorts.

—Amina Brown, 538

In 2022, our analysis showed that just 48 percent of Republican women in open primaries endorsed by VIEWPAC (a PAC dedicated to electing more women) won. As we observed at the time, VIEWPAC was willing to endorse candidates running against Trump endorsees, which was a bold, but losing, strategy in 2022. Tonight, VIEWPAC candidates in open primaries are not having a lot of success. As I already mentioned, in Alabama's 2nd District, Caroleene Dobson trails Dick Brewbaker. And in Texas's 26th District, another endorsee, Luisa del Rosa, a small business owner, is in a distant fourth place behind a Trump endorsee, Brandon Gill, with 88 percent of the expected votes in. (Gill has also been endorsed by Club for Growth.) But in Texas's 34th, the race has been called for their endorsee, Maya Flores ... who is also endorsed by Trump.

—Meredith Conroy, 538 contributor

Nikki Haley's delegate count from Vermont hinges on whether she clears the 50 percent threshold. And right now, she's incredibly close to it. With 68,420 votes cast, Haley has 34,215, which is 4 more votes than the 50 percent plus 1 she needs to sweep the state's delegates. When I simulate 100,000 primaries with that number of total votes and an even 50-50 split, I get a result that's within that tight margin only 3 percent of the time.

—Dan Hopkins, 538 contributor

Polls have closed in California, and ABC News projects that Trump will win the Golden State. He should easily clear 50 percent and claim all of the state's 169 delegates.

—Geoffrey Skelley, 538

Yesterday, the Supreme Court rejected the legal arguments claiming that Trump could be disqualified from running for president in 2024 because of his connection to the Jan. 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol. Section 3 of the 14th Amendment states that anyone who held a public or constitutional office and has engaged in insurrection is ineligible to hold office in the future, unless Congress passes a law stating otherwise. Section 5 says that Congress can also pass laws to enforce any of the provisions in the amendment. Lawsuits in several states came forward to disqualify Trump on these grounds.

But until recently, very few people had given much thought to this part of the 14th amendment since the years immediately following the Civil War. Legal scholars brought up a couple of ambiguities — did it apply to the presidency, since a number of offices are named, but not the president? Do we have an agreed upon definition of what counts as participating in an insurrection and whether Trump did that in 2021? (Spoiler alert: No.)

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the state of Colorado could not disqualify Trump, though there were disagreements about how far to take that ruling. A majority held that Congress would need to pass a law in order to enforce Section 3. Though the unanimity of the ruling papered over some of the partisan politics, the timing was impossible to separate from political considerations, since it came just in time for today’s big round of contests.

—Julia Azari, 538 contributor