GERRY 4

ESTB 8 25 ON TEXAS BS

MERRI OK

SEE MISSOURI FUCKERY FAIL 9 26

SEE WISC STATE SCOTUS

scotus 4 callais ~ VRA

nc STATE SCOTUS

FLA CONST ~?

INDIANA ~ 12 25

ca AND VA ~ TEXAS BS

-=-=

AN 10 26

The effort by President Donald Trump to redraw the congressional districts of Missouri in order to benefit the Republican Party has been blocked in court, causing confusion among voters and leading some Republican candidates to find themselves facing a more difficult battle ahead of the November midterm elections.

The redistricting controversy has angered voters all over Missouri, including those in strongly Republican areas, while the Democrats claim that their campaigns have been given a boost by the failed attempt

Fred Wellman, the Democratic candidate running against Republican Representative Ann Wagner in Missouri's second congressional district, described the initiative as "monumentally dumb" and stated that fundraising and volunteer involvement increased following the courts' rejection of the map, according to The Guardian.

The Republicans had wanted to convert Missouri's six-to-two lead in its U.S. House delegation into a seven-to-one ratio. Acting on Trump's advice, members of the GOP approved new boundaries in September 2025 that would have diminished the district based in Kansas City and currently represented by the Democratic Congressman Emanuel Cleaver.

However, an organized petition campaign cast the plans into question. The group called People Not Politicians gathered over 300,000 signatures requesting a referendum on the map, which then led to legal action regarding whether the districts could come into effect without prior voter approval.

The Republican Missouri Secretary of State, Denny Hoskins, at first refused to certify the referendum on the grounds that the state's petition procedure did not cover redistricting; however, in September the Missouri Supreme Court disagreed and instructed the state to use its earlier congressional boundaries.

On September 25, the U.S. Supreme Court kept the result as it was, preventing a further effort to reinstate the map which had been supported by the Republicans for the November election. The redrawn districts had already been employed in the August primaries, which caused uncertainty as to which candidates voters would encounter in November.

As absentee voting got underway, more than a million voters were affected according to The Associated Press because the authorities and the courts had given conflicting instructions as to which version of the map should apply to the November election.

Eric Leventhal, who is a voter in the St. Louis area and backed Wellman in the primary, said to The Guardian that he didn't any longer know which congressional district he resided in and described the whole thing as "dizzying and embarrassing, frankly."

At the same time, Cleaver stated that he had come across Republican voters who were willing to back him following the redistricting controversy. He described the original action as "pure, undistilled cheating."

Wellman stated that the legal reversal had made the district more competitive in relation to Wagner and had brought attention to his campaign outside of Missouri; however, the result of the election has still not been decided.

Missouri voters will also be voting on Proposition A in November, with a rejection of the legislature's 2025 map resulting from a 'no' vote and approval of the map for future use coming about with a 'yes' vote.

Even though they have suffered setbacks in the courts, Republican officials have indicated that further redistricting attempts are still possible following the midterms.

===

an 9 26

A leading Republican just delivered a searing indictment of GOP’s election scheme

-=-=

Conservative columnist David French has a warning for Americans who oppose President Donald Trump: The party's recent actions in Missouri foreshadow how they plan on undermining democracy in the upcoming midterm elections.

"It’s only September, and America just barely averted the first constitutional crisis of this year’s midterm elections," The New York Times columnist David French wrote on Sunday. "Hang with me here because this gets a bit complicated. Last September, the Missouri Legislature passed a redistricting bill called H.B. 1. This bill was part of the wave of mid-decade census redistricting initiated after President Trump essentially ordered the state of Texas in July to redistrict to create more Republican-majority congressional districts and diminish Democratic voting power in the state."

French then described how Missouri Secretary of State Denny Hoskins, despite being repeatedly ordered by both the US Supreme Court and the Missouri Supreme Court to implement a non-gerrymandered congressional map, was "brazen" in defying those court orders in order to push through a map that would benefit Trump's Republican Party.

"The secretary of state wrote an email directing that the new maps should still be used in November, directly defying the Missouri Supreme Court," French reported. "The court was not amused and immediately scheduled a hearing for Sept. 10 to determine whether to hold Hoskins in contempt of court."

After ultimately and begrudgingly complying with the Missouri Supreme Court's ruling, which the US Supreme Court reinforced, French wrote that Hoskins was found to have "engaged in 'contumacious conduct' (strong words in legalese that mean willfully disobedient or rebellious) — but that he’d 'purged' himself of his contempt through his belated compliance. A fraudulent election was averted, for now."

He concluded, "I wanted to walk through this situation in detail because it’s indicative of exactly how MAGA attempts to fix elections. It uses the complexity of the law (and public ignorance of the law) to obscure the utter brazenness of its defiance."

The Missouri incident is just one of many that indicate Trump is planning on stealing the 2026 midterm elections. Earlier in September, The Washington Post's Patrick Marley and Laura Meckler reported on how Trump is contemplating declaring a national emergency so he can meddle with the results.

"Since Trump returned to office last year, his backers — including Bannon and a lawyer close to Trump — have pressed the president to declare a national emergency that they say would unlock powers for him to rewrite election rules," The Post reported. "The idea resurfaced last month, when Trump appeared on a Real America’s Voice program hosted by Wayne Allyn Root. With election legislation stalled in the Senate, Root pressed Trump to declare an emergency that he said would allow him to limit mail ballots and require people to prove their citizenship to register to vote."

Trump then told Root, "Let me just say that stranger things have happened, okay? I’ll leave it at that.”

"What they all add up to is a desire to avoid any accountability to the voters in the midterm elections — to ensure, to preordain the outcome of a midterm that he thinks is going to go badly for him,” Dan Vicuña, Senior Policy Director for Voting and Fair Representation at Common Cause, told AlterNet in June. “We know, from the Big Lie of the 2020 election to spurring on a violent revolt to overthrow a free and fair election, that he has no respect for democratic norms, for the voice of the people. This is entirely about his own power and his own ego. He will even invest in protecting that ego and protecting his power at the expense of the needs of the public. People are suffering with high gas prices and affordability issues, and he does not care. All that matters is protecting his power, and he has no interest in whether he does that through democratic means.”

He added, “I think this all adds up to a desire to ensure that his party stays in power and his ability to do what he wants — to attack vulnerable communities — remains intact.”

“I think some of these attempts to federalize, to nationalize elections are clearly illegal,” Vicuña concluded. “You've seen some of that overreach already struck down — attempts to order independent agencies to force a strict voter ID requirement on people. That has been rejected. Common Cause is in court challenging the latest executive order to turn the United States Postal Service into some election administration agency and to create a further bureaucratic layer to make it more difficult to vote by mail. In terms of the president's authority to order around USPS, it's illegal. In terms of USPS's authority to become some sort of national election administration agency, it far exceeds the legal authority that Congress gave to the postal service. The statute describing what kind of work the postal service would do is about postal service work — processing mail and selling stamps. It has nothing to do with election administration.”

-=-=

-=-=

AN 9 26

Republican officials aren’t giving up on the congressional map they pushed through the Missouri legislature last year, despite two setbacks at the U.S. Supreme Court and a state Supreme Court ruling that the map never became law.

Their next chance comes Thursday before the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

But the legal path to getting the map back in place for November appears exceedingly narrow.

Even if the federal appeals court sides with Republicans challenging the use of Missouri’s old congressional districts, a U.S. Supreme Court order blocking the 2025 map would remain in effect unless the justices themselves lift it.

And there is another problem: The Missouri Supreme Court has already ruled that the map Republicans want to use never took effect under state law.

Former Missouri Supreme Court Judge Michael Wolff described that as an “insuperable obstacle.”

“The Supreme Court of Missouri is the final authority on what Missouri law is,” he said, “and the court has said that (the 2025 map) is not the law and never was, because it has not been approved by a vote of the people.”

For the Republican plaintiffs to prevail, he said, the 8th Circuit would effectively have to order Missouri to conduct an election using districts that the state’s highest court has determined are not legally in effect.

And even then, Wolff said, the U.S. Supreme Court’s stay would stand in the way.

“The chances,” Wolff said, “are between zero and zero.”

Justin Levitt, a law professor at Loyola Marymount University, told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch there is virtually no chance an 8th Circuit ruling will ultimately change the map used in the November election.

“The war’s over,” he said, “but there’s still soldiers fighting.”

Republican leaders see it differently.

Gov. Mike Kehoe, who called lawmakers into a special session last year to redraw Missouri’s congressional districts at President Donald Trump’s request, said after the U.S. Supreme Court intervened last week that he still hopes the appeals court will revive the map.

“I look forward to the 8th Circuit’s consideration of the merits of the Missouri First Map and remain confident in the legal process moving forward,” Kehoe said. “Voters deserve certainty and clarity.”

The 8th Circuit has set remote oral arguments for 10 a.m. Thursday, two days before the federal deadline for Missouri to send ballots to military and overseas voters.

The case was filed by U.S. Rep. Bob Onder, state Sen. Rick Brattin and two Missouri voters after the Missouri Supreme Court ruled Sept. 3 that a referendum petition challenging the new map was legal, sufficient and timely.

That unanimous decision put the map on the Nov. 3 ballot as Proposition A and held that the 2025 districts never took effect because a successful referendum petition suspends the challenged law until voters decide its fate.

The practical result is unusual: Missouri held its Aug. 4 congressional primaries under the 2025 map but is now preparing to hold the general election under the districts used in 2022 and 2024. Onder, Brattin and the other plaintiffs argue that switching maps between the primary and general election violates the U.S. Constitution by effectively nullifying votes already cast in the primary.

Chief U.S. District Judge Stephen Clark in St. Louis agreed they were likely to prevail on that argument and on Sept. 8 issued a temporary restraining order preventing Secretary of State Denny Hoskins from using any congressional map but the 2025 plan.

That set off two days of legal whiplash.

The 8th Circuit initially declined an appeal of Clark’s order, noting that appeals courts generally lack jurisdiction to review temporary restraining orders.

People Not Politicians, the group behind the referendum, then went to the U.S. Supreme Court, which Thursday morning stayed Clark’s order without any noted dissents.

The high court said its stay will remain in effect while the case is before the 8th Circuit and through any timely petition asking the justices to review the appeals court’s eventual ruling.

That means an 8th Circuit decision favoring Onder and the other plaintiffs would not, by itself, put the 2025 map back in place.

After the U.S. Supreme Court intervened, the 8th Circuit moved quickly, ordering expedited briefs and scheduling Thursday’s argument.

Hours after the U.S. Supreme Court acted, Hoskins reversed a directive he had issued to local election officials and told them to use the 2022 map. The Missouri Supreme Court found Hoskins had been in contempt of its Sept. 3 order but said he purged the contempt by reversing course.

During the contempt hearing, Chief Justice W. Brent Powell repeatedly pressed lawyers for Hoskins on a question that could hang over Thursday’s federal argument: Whatever the federal courts decide, can they change the Missouri Supreme Court’s conclusion that the 2025 map never became state law?

“(The 2025 map) never went into effect, right?” Powell asked William Seidleck, an assistant attorney general representing Hoskins.

“Per this court’s holding, yes,” Seidleck replied.

Powell returned to the point later, asking whether a future federal ruling could change the fact that the map had never taken effect.

“As a matter of state law,” Seidleck said, it could not.

Chuck Hatfield, an attorney for People Not Politicians, told the judges he believed the U.S. Supreme Court’s intervention had largely eliminated the immediate stakes of the federal appeal.

“I think we’re done, judge, as a practical matter,” Hatfield said, though he acknowledged the litigation could continue.

One of the biggest unanswered questions heading into Thursday is what position Attorney General Catherine Hanaway’s office will take.

Hanaway represents Missouri and Hoskins in the federal litigation. Her office sided with the Republican plaintiffs before Clark and urged him to block use of the 2022 map. It later asked the U.S. Supreme Court to leave Clark’s order in place.

But after the U.S. Supreme Court stayed that order and Hoskins agreed to follow the state court’s directive, Hanaway was less definitive about what comes next.

“As far as our strategy for the 8th Circuit, I don’t know, because it’s a very confusing posture,” Hanaway told reporters last week.

Asked whether any path remained to revive the 2025 map, she told reporters: “As I stand here today, no.”

Military and overseas ballots must be sent by Sept. 19. Local election officials spent much of last week waiting for the courts to decide which congressional districts they should use before Hoskins’ Thursday directive put them back on the 2022 map.

-=-=

===

3 IN 1 DAY

Trump hit with jaw dropping negative poll in Missouri for the first time

2 Missouri Republicans have already lost several of its lawsuits as part of the ongoing effort to change the congressional maps less than two months before the 2026 election. Now they're facing another blow.

"Law Dork" Chris Geidner posted on BlueSky that the U.S. Supreme Court has weighed in again on the temporary restraining order a federal district court issued blocking changes to the electoral maps.

It has been a tough road for Missouri Secretary of State Denny Hoskins, a Republican, who got a ruling from the state Supreme Court blocking the maps. He then ran to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, demanding that they step in. They did, and Hoskins decided that the district court superseded the state Supreme Court. A law school professor explained that that isn't how it works.

Hoskins on Tuesday emailed election officials, instructing them to break the law and use the map the court ruled against. His email prompted the state Supreme Court to ask why it shouldn't hold Hoskins in contempt of court for defying its ruling. Hoskins had until noon on Wednesday to submit an excuse to the Missouri high court, but instead, he begged the district court to step in and protect him.

In the early morning hours of Thursday, they released a ruling saying that they would not.

The only higher court that can overrule the state Supreme Court is the U.S. Supreme Court, and in its ruling, it made it clear that it deferred to the state Supreme Court.

Hoskins rushed to the U.S. Supreme Court again — but on Thursday morning, they struck it down once again.

There are no noted dissents from the Supreme Court justices.

It makes a definitive ruling that the maps used for the 2026 election will be the 2022 maps, not the new ones the GOP wants to use.

KSDK News political reporter Mark Maxwell, "The U.S. Supreme Court has stayed the federal order that barred Missouri from using any map but the new one. That leaves the state court's ruling as the only one in effect. Election officials and Denny Hoskins are prohibited under court order from using HB1."

Missouri Solicitor General Louis Capozzi said that he submitted a brief to the federal judges and even gave a big thanks to President Donald Trump's Solicitor General John Sauer "and his team for filing a brief in our support on behalf of the United States."

Less than an hour later, the Supreme Court shut it all down.

Michigan State University Law School Professor Quinn Yeargain responded," This has been a stupid journey from beginning to end, and I hope that it culminates in sanctions for Hoskins and the rest of these disgusting ghouls."

Hoskins faces off against the Missouri Supreme Court in a hearing at 11 a.m. EST over his contempt charges.

3

Missouri Secretary of State Denny Hoskins, a Republican, had a tough hearing before the Missouri state Supreme Court on Thursday, in which the state attorney general's office was forced to defend him against contempt charges for refusing to comply with a ruling they issued on the usage of congressional maps for the upcoming 2026 election.

Like many states, Missouri Republicans attempted to redraw lines to eliminate Democratic seats and help President Donald Trump keep as many GOP members of Congress as possible.

Ultimately, the hearing closed with Chief Justice W. Brent Powell telling the attorney general's office, "I would tell your client, the secretary of state, not to venture far from Jefferson City until this contempt ruling is decided."

It wasn't the only verbal smackdown delivered by the conservative state court.

Chuck Hatfield, counsel for People Not Politicians, the group that sued over the use of the 2026 maps, began the hearing by walking through the quickly changing legal situation, but Hoskins knowingly ignored the ruling and told local election officials not to follow the law. To him, that is worthy of a contempt ruling.

Missouri's AG's office lawyer claimed that Hoskins was in a difficult position because one court said one thing and another court said another. The reason for that, however, is that Hoskins went to the federal court when he didn't like the ruling from the state Supreme Court. He also asked the federal court to intervene to protect him from being held in contempt. The judge refused.

The justices didn't appear to buy into it, asking whether Hoskins fully understands that the law changing to the new maps, known as House Bill 1 (HB1), never went into effect. Chief Justice Powell, along with other justices, asked multiple times and in different ways whether Hoskins fully grasped that the maps were never legally changed. The AG office's lawyer appeared to play around with the admission, saying that Hoskins understands that now, but before, he was in a difficult position.

"We’re in a precarious situation," a frustrated Powell said. He urged them all to "get on the same page" and "find a way to save some of these elections so they are valid and we can sit the congressional delegation that our state is entitled to."

One justice cut in to say that they have a larger concern that the secretary of state could turn around and use maps that aren't law.

According to the attorney general's lawyer, Secretary of State Hoskins "acknowledges that this court's injunction is back in full force and effect" and is "evaluating next steps." In fact, the lawyer said multiple times that he hadn't had much time to confer with Hoskins since the U.S. Supreme Court issued its ruling about an hour prior to the contempt hearing. So, Hoskins is still "evaluating the situation."

"I mean, it's just English," one justice said.

The justice explained that Hoskins could easily have waited until he had a final ruling on the matter as a whole, but instead, he chose the decision he wanted most and broadcast it to local officials, thereby causing more confusion. They asked what direction he had given to officials, and the AG's office said that there wasn't any.

A justice cut in to say that actually wasn't the case. The most recent message from the secretary of state's office was not to follow the law and the ruling by the state Supreme Court.

The hearing ended with Hoskins committing to telling the local officials that he lost in court and that they must comply with the 2022 maps.

As for his contempt, the justices said that he shouldn't leave town any time soon.

-=-=

-===

AN 9 26

In deep red Missouri, Republican State Attorney General Catherine Hanaway is lashing out the state's supreme court ruling over a recent ruling on the state's election map — a ruling she attacked as "legal fiction." Hanaway is now taking up the matter with the U.S. Supreme Court. And according to Mark Maxwell, political editor for KSDK News in St. Louis, this legal battle is a recipe for "absolute chaos."

On Friday, September 4, according to Politico's Gregory Svirnovskiy, Hanaway "asked the U.S. Supreme Court for an emergency stay of a Missouri High Court ruling that found the state cannot use new, heavily gerrymandered districts in the November election."

Hanaway, in her filing, told U.S. Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, "A federal-election-administration disaster is unfolding in Missouri."

According to Svirnovskiy, "Hanaway's plea came after the Missouri Supreme Court, on Thursday, put the brakes on a congressional map drawn by Republicans last year with the backing of President Donald Trump and ordered a Democrat-organized referendum on the GOP's map proposal, which would have likely given Republicans a 7-1 advantage by eliminating the Kansas City district held by longtime Democratic Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.), be put to a vote this fall. The court ruled that the November elections must proceed in accordance with the map Missouri used in 2022, which still saw Republicans favored in six of the state's eight districts."

The Missouri Independent's Rudi Keller reports that Hanaway believes the Missouri Supreme Court expressed a "legal fiction" when "it ruled that putting the state's new congressional map to a referendum means Missouri must use its previous district lines in November."

Keller notes that Tuesday, September 8 "is the deadline for changing the November 3 ballot" in Missouri. And Kavanaugh, according to Keller, asked "other parties to weigh in on the application for an emergency stay."

Hanaway wrote, "Ultimately, if what applicants seek is this court's blessing to implement (the 2025 map) in contravention of Missouri law, they must secure an order affirmatively establishing the secretary's authority to use it. That requires an injunction, not a stay.”

KSDK News' Maxwell, in his tweet, explained why this legal fight could cause major problems in the midterms.

Maxwell tweeted, "In a reply brief to the US Supreme Court, Missouri Attorney General Catherine Hanaway signals local election officials could defy the state Supreme Court and proceed with the old HB1 'Missouri First' map, which would be absolute chaos. The state court explicitly forbade this."

Keller notes that this legal battle finds the ACLU and the Campaign Legal Center allied with the group People Not Politicians — for which they filed an amicus brief — and on the opposite side from Hanaway and her allies.

According to Keller, "The American Center for Law and Justice filed a brief supporting (Missouri Secretary of State Denny) Hoskins. In St. Louis, U.S. Rep. Bob Onder, State Sen. Rick Brattin, and two voters filed their lawsuit in the Eastern District court on Friday, with People Not Politicians seeking to intervene to have the case dismissed."

-=-=

an 8 26

Texas Republican redistricting 'comes back to bite them'

-=-=

---

NC GOP ~ NEW GERRY MAP 5 27 26

---

CRC GERRY VA ATTACK STILSON

In April, voters in Virginia narrowly approved a constitutional amendment that—barring judicial intervention—will suspend the state’s independent bipartisan redistricting commission and allow the Democrat-controlled General Assembly to draw new federal Congressional districts ahead of the 2026 midterm elections. The aggressively gerrymandered map which has been proposed could yield a U.S. House delegation of ten Democrats and just one Republican. Virginia’s current delegation consists of six Democrats and five Republicans.

The ballot measure was by far the most expensive in the state’s history. Both sides raised tens of millions of dollars, though public disclosures reveal that the new map’s supporters were significantly better-resourced than its opponents. Here is what is known about their respective finances and funders.

Supporters

The campaign in favor of the gerrymandering amendment was led by a committee called Virginians for Fair Elections. Data compiled by the Virginia Public Access Project as of May 4 reported that it had raised a total of $66,121,864, while official state campaign finance disclosures reported $65,121,496 worth of large contributions from February 6 through April 24. Of these large contributions, $63,240,000 was in cash, with the remainder being in-kind. The vast majority (94 percent) of these in-kind contributions came from the Democratic Party of Virginia and the activist group New Virginia Majority.

Just five groups—all of which are organized as 501(c)(4) nonprofits—accounted for over 96 percent of all large cash contributions reported by Virginians for Fair Elections from February 6 through April 24:

• House Majority Forward ($39,300,000): an advocacy group that is formally affiliated with House Majority PAC—the self-described “only Super PAC solely focused on electing House Democrats.”
• The Fairness Project ($11,725,000): a group that supports left-of-center ballot measures nationwide, and whose major funders have included the SEIU United Healthcare Workers West labor union, the Sixteen Thirty Fund, and the Hopewell Fund.
• Fund for Policy Reform ($5,000,000): a 501(c)(4) that exists within the Open Society network funded by George Soros. It is also the sole source of funding for the Open Society Action Fund, which conducts the network’s more explicitly political grantmaking.
• American Opportunity Action ($3,500,000): a new nonprofit that received its 501(c)(4) tax-exempt status from the IRS in September 2025. No public financials for the group are yet available, though an April 2026 New York Times article described the group as “perhaps the newest big player in dark-money politics.”
• Global Impact Social Welfare Fund ($1,500,000): a 501(c)(4) that exists under the Global Impact Ventures organizational umbrella, and which receives major funding from an associated 501(c)(3) called Global Impact.

Opponents

The largest committee formed to oppose the gerrymandering amendment was Virginians for Fair Maps RC. The Virginia Public Access Project’s data as of May 4 reported that it had raised a total of $21,833,564, while official state disclosures reported $24,065,000 worth of large contributions from March 2 through April 20—all of which was in cash. Nearly all (over 97 percent) of this money came from a separate but identically named group called Virginians for Fair Maps. This makes it impossible, at least for now, to trace the funding trail further.

Opponents of amendment also operated through a second committee called Justice for Democracy. The Virginia Public Access Project’s website reported as of May 4 that Justice for Democracy had raised $7,670,000, while official state disclosures listed $10,170,000 worth of large contributions from March 10 through April 24—all cash. Over 95 percent of these large contributions came from a 501(c)(4) nonprofit called Per Aspera Policy Inc. Little information is available regarding Per Aspera’s funding. It raised $2.9 million in 2024, but just $92,399 in 2023. Though billionaire Peter Thiel has reportedly contributed to the group in the past, a source told Mother Jonesthat he has had “nothing to do with it” for years and was not among Per Aspera’s current donors. If true, this would make Virgina attorney general Jay Jones’ public claim that Thiel was “spending millions in Virginia” on the redistricting measure a false one.

Looking Ahead

As of this writing, the Supreme Court of Virginia has not ruled on pending legal challenges to the amendment, though it is expected to do so soon. Multiple other states have also embarked on mid-decade redistricting efforts. One illustrative battleground is Missouri, where a Republican-led effort could potentially face a ballot referendum in November. Some of the very same groups and networks that supported the Democrat-driven gerrymandering in Virginia (including American Opportunity Action, the Fairness Project, the Global Impact Social Welfare Fund, and the Open Society Action Fund) are currently opposing it Missouri. Such is the hypocrisy of politics.

Tags: American Opportunity Action, Fund for Policy Reform, Global Impact Social Welfare Fund, House Majority Forward, New Virginia Majority., redistricting, The Fairness Project, Virginians for Fair Elections

---

an 5 26

Legal analysts stunned as 3-judge panel enacts Sotomayor plan to block Alabama maps

A three-judge panel has blocked Alabama's effort to readjust maps to eliminate congressional districts that contain large populations of people of color, reported Politico on Tuesday.

It flies in the face of the recent decision by the U.S. Supreme Court that struck down part of the Voting Rights Act, which makes it more difficult to challenge redistricting based on racially biased redistricting, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) analyzed.

That didn't stop another state from stepping in on a different case.

Legal analyst Josh Gerstein believesthe next and final step will be a trip to the High Court. Journalist Kirk A. Bado agreed.

In a thread about the case, former Alabama prosecutor Joyce Vance commented, "Even after Callais, a 3-judge panel (2 Trump appointees) enjoins Alabama from using 'new' maps for the midterm election because of evidence of racial discrimination. Writing in dissent from SCOTUS’ decision to speed Milligan, the Alabama gerrymandering case, into effect after Callais, Justice Sotomayor invited the panel to do exactly this."

“Alabama cannot use Callais to legitimize its pre-Callais decision to double down on the discriminatory vote dilution that we and the Supreme Court found,” the court ruled. “And it cannot use Callais to legitimize the series of specific and unusual decisions it made to entrench that dilution. If such retroactive validation strategies were available, States would be encouraged to govern themselves according to what they think federal law ought to be, not what it is.”

"This decision finds AL's 2023 map was intentionally racially discriminatory even after Callais, but the injunction expires when AL passes new districts, which is already in the works," explained New Mexico lawyer Owen Barcala.

Further, he explained, "Probably won't get decisions like this in the future because the legislators in 2022 didn't know they could just explain everything away as a partisan gerrymander. Here they expressly said they weren't trying to do a partisan gerrymander."

"Whoa! Everyone had assumed Alabama would get to go back to its old congressional map after Callais. But the lower court that originally struck down that map says, not so fast," characterized VotebeatUS managing editor Nathaniel Rakich.

"I anticipate that Alabama will appeal soon. The Supreme Court oversees the appeal and will oversee the stay motion. Given their recent work on this, I am inclined to think they grant (but never know with them)," said conservative Eric Wess.

"Darkly funny how the Supreme Court keeps telling Republicans, 'Here is the approved list of ways to disenfranchise black voters, ' and Republicans are so greedy they keep failing to pass through the extremely wide loophole the court carved out for them in the VRA," one person quipped.

Another commented, "'I wasn’t trying to knock down that building,' says Guy Who Rented A Bulldozer And Used It To Repeatedly Ram The Building."

In 2023, three federal judges in the Allen v. Milligancase struck down the maps, saying that they had blatantly discriminated against Black voters, Democracy Docket recalled.

“Try as we might, we cannot understand the 2023 Plan as anything other than an intentional effort to dilute Black Alabamians’ voting strength and evade the unambiguous requirements of court orders standing in the way,” the judges wrote. “After we and the Supreme Court ruled that the 2021 Plan, with only one majority-Black district, likely had the unlawful discriminatory effect of diluting Black Alabamians’ votes, the Legislature deliberately enacted another Plan that it concedes lacks the second Black-opportunity district we said was required. This amounted to intentional racial discrimination in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection guarantee.”

---

---}:

AN 5 26

NO LNX

Trump doesn't have to care about your pain anymore — thanks to John Roberts

John Stoehr May 18, 2026

In the absence of fundamental change, especially among Democratic leaders, I can't say I have a lot of hope these days. That's in spite of all the polling showing that Donald Trump is the most unpopular president ever. He was unpopular the first time. That he's unpopular the second time should not be surprising. What is surprising is he was elected again despite being unpopular. More surprising is we keep believing unpopularity will doom him.

Don't get me wrong.

It could be that Trump's policies burn up so much of the American electorate that voters storm the polls in November to put Democrats back in charge of the Congress. But what if they storm the polls and nothing changes? Not because Democratic leaders are squishes, though that's true enough, but because John Robert's US Supreme Court, and now state courts, legalized cheating. We all believe in our bones that you win when you're popular, lose when you're not. But white-power gerrymandering takes that foundational belief and perverts it.

Trump admitted this week that he doesn't care about the economic effects of his war against Iran. (Inflation hit 3.8 percent. In effect, that means we all got a pay cut.) To what extent are Americans' financial situations motivating him toward a peace deal? "Not even a little bit," the president said. "The only thing that matters is ... they can't have a nuclear weapon. I don't think about Americans' financial situation. I don't think about anybody. I think about one thing. We cannot let Iran have a nuclear weapon. That's the only thing that motivates me."

That clip was shared widely by liberals and Democrats, as it seemed to be more evidence of the growing backlash against the president and his party. (Most Americans were not concerned about Iran's nuclear program before the war.) But what if it wasn't evidence so much as foreshadowing – of the kind of dystopian future we can expect to experience in which the American president has been fully liberated from the consequences of his choices, in which he can do virtually anything he wants without fear of democratic accountability.

I'm talking about immediate material stakes here, more than ideological stakes. Complaints about an executive branch acting like it's above the law are going to feel almost quaint in a context of food shortages. But the longer Trump's war goes on, the more likely we are to face such a crisis. Overseas markets have dried up. Fertilizer is scarce. The price of diesel is soaring. Crop-pickers are getting deported. And farms are going bankrupt at alarming rates. If we're lucky, saying he doesn't care will be a warning to future presidents to never, ever, ever say that. If we're unlucky, however, it won't be a warning. It will be an abomination.

Last week, Virginia's supreme court struck down a ballot measure that would have redrawn the state's congressional maps, giving Democrats an advantage. The referendum was lawful and legitimate, yet the court overturned the law in a blatant act of usurpation, following the lead of the US Supreme Court. The response by Virginia Democrats should have been a declaration of war against unelected legislators, knowing that a majority was behind them.

But instead of leading an effort to force out the judges (by lowering the retirement age) and bringing the law to a refreshed court, Virginia’s state Senate Majority Leader Scott Surovell told Greg Sargent there were practical obstacles. But beyond that, Surovell said, "wiping out the entire supreme court is an incredibly extreme step to take over a decision you don’t like." He added that his party will appeal the decision to the US Supreme Court, but short of a favorable ruling there, he still expects voters to put Democrats in two of four lost seats.

In other words, don't worry.

"The people" will come through.

Praising "the people" is patriotic propaganda with a long history in America that feels good, but it's wrong, even dangerous. Joe Biden hoped the 2024 election would be a trial of sorts of a treasonous former president. He hoped that his administration would not have to take the risk of criminally prosecuting him. Look where that got us. The lesson should be to never ask "the people" to make sound moral judgments. They won't do it. Instead, they will give a traitor a second chance, then complain about the ruinous consequences of giving it to him.

Sadly, it seems some Democratic leaders still have not learned this lesson. They hope "the people" will do the work for them, saving them from the risk of doing what needs to be done. In the Virginia case, it would be good to remove anti-democratic judges anyway for the fact that they exposed themselves as anti-democratic judges. Indeed, the Virginia case is a microcosm. There no such thing as democratic progress if rogue courts go unpunished. As Jonathan Bernstein said today, even if the Democrats have a trifecta after 2028, "there’s just about nothing Congress could do to prop up healthy democracy in the US (or, for that matter, to pass any other policy agenda the Democrats might have) that is safe from the six Republicans on the Supreme Court. There’s simply no way to court-proof anything."

Like everyone else, I hope "the people" correct their error. (The Bulwark's Jonathan Last says don't worry, the "panicrats" are, well, panicking.) But despite what Democratic leaders say, electoral victory is not the same as saving the republic. That requires cold-blooded partisans using their legitimate authority to change the institutions that have corrupted democracy.

Donald Trump, the Republicans and their rightwing allies in the courts have rigged the system, through white-power gerrymandering, so that being a monumentally unpopular party might no longer be an impediment to rule. (Ordinary people could face food shortages, for God's sake, while Trump shrugs.) The Democrats cannot hope that "the people" can overcome a rigged system, because "the people" cannot overcome one. Indeed, they have proven capable of making things worse. Democrats like Virginia's Scott Surovell fear being too extreme. My hope is in Democrats who realize they haven't been extreme enough.

---

---

AN 5 26

President Donald Trump's gerrymandering crusade has been a "disaster for our democracy," but according to one political scientist who spoke with the New York Times, there is a fix that could undo the damage.

Lee Drutman is a senior fellow in the Political Reform program at the New America public policy institute, and on Tuesday, the Times published a video interview with him conducted by journalist and author, Ezra Klein. The Times described Drutman as "one of the most persistent and thoughtful advocates for proportional representation," an idea that "might be the answer we need to turn to here" in the face of Trump's redistricting blitz.

"Proportional representation describes a family of voting systems widely used throughout the world in which the party gets seats in the legislature in direct proportion to the vote share," Drutman said.

Under a system like this, Drutman explained, states would implement larger congressional districts that each have a larger number of seats, rather than the current system, where numerous districts each get one. With proportional representation, an eight-seat district, for example, would send four Democrats and four Republicans to Congress if a district split the vote between each party 50/50.

"So you could imagine New York State, instead of being 26 districts, maybe being three districts, split between the north, the mid and the New York City area," Drutman explained. "You might have an eight-member district, a nine-member district and a nine-member district. And then parties would put forward lists of candidates. Say, in a midstate eight-member district, if Republicans get 50 percent of the vote, their top four candidates on their party list go to Congress. And if Democrats get 50 percent of the vote, their top four candidates go to Congress."

By contrast, he added, the current system awards 100 percent of the representation for a district to the candidate and party who gets at least a little bit over 50 percent of the vote. Proportional representation, then, is a much more "intuitively fair" way of conducting politics.

"There are a bunch of different ways to do proportional representation, and there are better ways to do it and worse ways to do it," Drutman continued. "But the big thing that people should know is that this is a system in which we are mechanically doing what we think is fair, which is that parties should get seats in the legislature in direct proportion to the share of votes that they get in the election."

He added later: "[The] thing that we don’t like about gerrymandering is that it’s highly disproportional. Take Louisiana: You have six districts, and you can draw them in a whole lot of different ways to maximize your advantage if you’re the Republican State Legislature. If you make Louisiana one six-member proportional district, there are no lines to draw. There’s no possibility for gerrymandering."

Larger states like California and Texas would still have multiple districts that could conceivably still be gerrymandered, Drutman noted, but proportional representation would still blunt the impact of those tactics by allowing in some representatives from the minority vote-share party.

---

says not on tv anymore, goes in cylcles 5 26

Author, legal analyst, and The Nation’s justice correspondent Elie Mystal joins The Left Hook to break down the roots of MAGA, the modern Republican Party’s embrace of minority rule, and why America is still battling the political legacy of the Confederacy.

Elie and I discuss voter suppression, gerrymandering, the gutting of the Voting Rights Act, the corrupt Supreme Court, and how billionaire power and white grievance politics continue driving America toward democratic collapse. We also examine why MAGA’s escalating attacks on democracy reveal fear — not strength — as the country changes politically, culturally, and demographically.

The Confederacy lost the war, but the fight over democracy continues.

---

---

GO AFTER ca DISTRICTS POST CALAIS

AI Overview GGL 5 26

Following the Supreme Court's ruling in Louisiana v. Callais (April/May 2026), which curbed the use of race in redistricting, U.S. Senator Eric Schmitt (R-MO) has spearheaded a Republican effort to challenge Democratic-led congressional maps. [1, 2]

Schmitt's Actions Following Callais

• DOJ Pressure: Schmitt sent a letter to the Department of Justice (DOJ) urging them to act on the ruling, which he argues makes it illegal to use the Voting Rights Act (VRA) to justify racially gerrymandered districts. [1, 2]

• Targeting Blue States: Schmitt has specifically called on the DOJ to target California, arguing their maps were driven by partisan, not racial, considerations. He described the ruling as a "map war" that allows for challenging maps in blue states. [1, 2]

• Subcommittee Role: Acting as Chairman of the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Schmitt is pushing for a nationwide review of districts. [1]

GOP Strategy & "Map War"

• Shifting Legal Landscape: Republicans, including Schmitt, argue that the Callais decision means states can no longer use the VRA as an excuse for racial gerrymandering. [1]

• "Ending Racial Gerrymandering": Schmitt states that the decision restores the promise of equal representation and prevents "carving up America into racial spoils". [1]

• Reactions: While proponents suggest this ensures fair maps, critics argue it allows for more traditional partisan gerrymandering and could eliminate majority-minority districts that ensure representation. [1, 2]

• Harmeet Dhillon Response: Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon responded to Schmitt, stating the DOJ is "on it" regarding the review of potentially illegal districts. [1, 2]

Callais is expected to cause significant changes to the 2026 midterm election landscape, with the potential for legal battles over district lines in several states. [1, 2]

---

---

FLA AN 4 26

'Certifiably insane': Florida political expert warns Republicans their map will backfire - Alternet.org

---

YOUNGKIN

Trump ally in the dog house amid blame for humiliating loss to Democrats - Alternet.org

//

4 26

The GOP's immediate attempt to overturn their humiliating redistricting loss in Virginia has fallen flat, per a report from The Hill, with a judge ruling this weekend in favor of the Democrats and their new maps that could spell even more doom for Republicans in the midterms.

Last week, voters in Virginia approved a new congressional district map by a 3-point margin, clearing the way for as many as four more Democratic seats in the House of Representatives in the coming midterm elections. The state's Democratic government put forward the redistricting effort as a means to combat similar efforts in red states like Texas to create more Republican seats in the House at the behest of President Donald Trump, who hoped to avoid losing the GOP's razor-thin majority in the chamber.

Voters approved the change, as they also did in California, but Republicans fought back against the humiliating loss in court, getting a judge to swiftly shoot down the new map, pending another ruling from a higher court. On Sunday, that ruling arrived, with Richmond Circuit Court Judge Tracy Thorne-Begland denying a request from the Republican National Committee, the Virginia Republican and other parties that the map be tossed out.

In his ruling, Thorne-Begland said it was not for the court to dictate or chastise policy, but rather to ensure that lawmakers reached their ends in compliance with the law.

“This Court knows its role is clear. It is not to assess the wisdom of public policy nor to engage in policy making from the bench,” the judge explained. “Instead, it is to decide if those with whom we have entrusted power have exercised that power in conformance with their constitutional mandate. On this question, the Court’s answer is in the affirmative.”

Republicans first filed the request in April, days prior to the vote itself, claiming that the map "violated the state Constitution," according to The Hill, and was “adopted without legal authority when enacted." They also argued that the new districts were not "compact," a term that, in this context, refers to districts being created with reasonable, smooth and geometric shapes, as opposed to odd shapes obviously intended to achieve partisan goals.

Thorne-Begland concurred that the new districts were not compact, though it did not ultimately impact his ruling.

"The 2026 maps are undoubtedly less compact than the ones they replace," the judge wrote. "They are certainly partisan gerrymanders. They displace both representatives and voters into new, oddly shaped districts."

The issue will next be considered by the Virginia Supreme Court. The U.S. Supreme Court, meanwhile, previously ruled in favor of California's new Democrat-favored maps, which were drafted and approved by voters in a similar fashion.

---

RWW

Briefing

04/22/2026

by

Kyle Mantyla

• Ari Berman @ Mother Jones: Virginia Dems Just Won a Major Battle in Trump’s Redistricting War

Voters don’t like gerrymandering. But they seem to hate Trump even more.

• Hafiz Rashid @ The New Republic: MAGA Loses It as Trump’s Redistricting Plot Backfires

Republicans are disturbed they’re losing the fight they started, following a major win in Virginia.

---

AN 4 26

Last August, a GOP-led gerrymandering effort in Texas resulted in the creation of new Republican congressional seats, sparking a nationwide battle to redistrict several states in an attempt to swing electoral maps in one party of the other’s favor. Now with polls open on a redistricting referendum in Virginia, President Donald Trump ally Steve Bannon is claiming that it is a “demonic” effort by the Democrats to take power and launch impeachment proceedings.

If Virginia voters accept the proposed map, it will lend Democrats a 10-1 advantage in the state, gaining the party four new congressional seats.

“This is their plan,” said Bannon, speaking on his podcast with Virginia GOP chair Jeff Ryer. “Not just, are they going to take power and use these four seats to impeach Trump? But they’re going to use this as a template for the rest of the country. It’s coming.”

Bannon suggested that dark motivations underlie the endeavor.

“These Democrats are demonic,” he declared. “If they weren’t demonic, wouldn’t they show you the map? Wouldn’t they walk you through the logic?”

As Democracy Docketpoints out, Democrats in fact did release a proposed map. Early voting is already open, and the final count is expected to be close. In opposing the effort, state Republicans distributed misleading mailers that suggest top Democrats like President Barack Obama and Governor Abigail Spanberger oppose the redistricting. Both, in reality, support it.

With Trump’s approval rating plummeting to historic lows and the November midterms approaching fast, Republicans have begun panicking over the “inconvenient truth” that they’re almost certain to take major losses. Most experts expect the GOP to lose its majority in the House, and some are even saying the party's majority is vulnerable in the Senate.

According to veteran Republican strategist Mike Madrid, who has spent nearly four decades analyzing elections, "I've never seen the fundamentals of an election cycle as bad for an incumbent party as I am right now,"

---

---

am 3 26

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports the Republican leader of the Wisconsin Senate is the latest in a “string of retirements” of prominent GOP lawmakers as rebalanced district maps begin to take effect.

Sen. Devin LeMahieu has held the office since 2015 and was elected majority leader in 2020. But now that the state’s new liberal-leaning supreme court has agreed to new un-gerrymandered district maps giving Republicans less of an advantage in upcoming elections, LeMahieu has suddenly determined that “… the time has come for a new chapter in my life."

“LeMahieu is the second top Republican to announce his intention to leave the GOP-controlled state Legislature,” reports MJS. “Assembly Speaker Robin Vos earlier this year announced he would retire at the end of his current term.”

In 2023, the Wisconsin Supreme Court overturned legislative maps drawn by GOP lawmakers, which overwhelmingly favored Republicans, by a 4-to-3 vote — but only after a ferocious and expensive election that put a new liberal judge on the court.

That ruling forced the state to submit new maps in advance of the 2024 election. Liberal judge Janet Protasiewicz, elected that same year, cast the deciding vote to eliminate the GOP-drawn maps.

Prior to its new maps, the Princeton Gerrymandering Project called Wisconsin's state legislative maps among the most unfair in the nation, with Princeton giving "F" grades to both the state assembly map and the state senate map in 2022.

Vox.com's Ian Millhiser called the Wisconsin’s Republican gerrymander so aggressive that it was practically impossible for Democrats to gain control of the state legislature.

"In 2018, for example, Democratic state assembly candidates received 54 percent of the popular vote in Wisconsin, but Republicans still won 63 of the assembly’s 99 seats — just three seats short of the two-thirds supermajority Republicans would need to override a gubernatorial veto," Millhiser wrote.

Now, three years later, Republicans are headed for the door as fairer maps end the likelihood of reelection in this state that voted for President Donald Trump in the last national election.

The MJS reports LeMahieu said he is looking forward to spending more time with his wife and “rooting for bold conservative reform from the sidelines."

---

---

AN VA MERC 3 216

It’s a ridiculous idea: temporarily revert to hyper-partisan reapportionment just six years after Virginia voters, weary of its abuses, put an independent bipartisan commission in charge of drawing fairer, more sensible lines.

Virginia voters are being asked to backtrack on a noble choice they made in 2020. Under a bizarre new map proposed by Democratic majorities that rule the General Assembly, Republicans could shrink from five of Virginia’s 11 U.S. House seats to just one.

To enable that, Virginians would have to ratify a state constitutional amendment in a referendum next month that momentarily suspends the independent Virginia Redistricting Commission that took decades of work to bring to life. In its place would be a brutally partisan reapportionment that makes the most notorious gerrymandering of yore seem quaint.

It’s madness — a highly contagious and virulent strain of madness engineered last summer in the laboratory of MAGA chicanery that is Texas, and released upon the body politic at the urging of MAGA’s leader, Donald Trump.

With Trump’s popularity cratering, the president exhorted GOP-ruled states to redraw their congressional districts to purge nearly all Democratic-held seats halfway through the decade of the 2020s rather than await the 2030 census.

This had nothing to do with population shifts or proportional representation. It’s a cynical hedge against an increasingly likely Democratic sweep of Congress this fall and the certainty that a Democratic House and Senate will launch one damning investigation after another into scams, scandals and coverups in Trump’s second White House term.

Lone Star Republicans eagerly raised their hands and said, “I’m your huckleberry!”

A redistricting designed to give five Democratic-held Texas U.S. House seats to the GOP cleared the Texas House on a party-line 88-52 vote. Then the state Senate did the same, also on partisan lines. On Aug. 29, the nation’s second most-populous state was carved into a new map with geopolitical distortions resembling a Rorshach test when Gov. Greg Abbott, an unfailing Trump footman, signed it into law.

Thus commenced America’s race to the bottom. The nation’s most populous state, deep blue California, responded with a map designed to flip five GOP-held seats.

Republican states are painting their districts red; Democratic ones like Virginia are painting theirs blue. According to theNational Conference of State Legislatures, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio and Utah have joined California and Texas in enacting new, partisan districts. Virginia is among four where legislation to do the same is pending. Indiana and Florida are considering it, both quite late to the game. Alabama, Louisiana, North Dakota and Wisconsin await court rulings or are in litigation that could force mid-cycle remapping.

For a huge swath of the electorate, this raises many questions with no good answers.

Voters, already exhausted, confused and disenchanted, didn’t want yet another rip in the fabric of American civic life. The latest polling shows most voters here prefer our current redistricting process, not the chaotic proposed remapping that’s being pitched to them now.

Tens of millions now must reorient themselves to unfamiliar elected officials and candidates in strange, misshapen new districts in which communities separated by several hours’ drive share little in common economically, historically or culturally.

Is all this really necessary?

In Virginia, where Trump is winless as a candidate and has been an albatross for Republicans in every state election when he’s been in office or on the ballot, Democrats might be able to achieve their goals under the existing congressional lines, said Mark J. Rozell, a political science professor at George Mason University and dean of its Schar School of Policy and Government.

“With the typical midterm reaction against the party in the White House and the fast-declining public approval of this president, Democrats are well-positioned to pick up seats without going through a redistricting process that will just set in motion other such efforts when they are not in power,” he said. “They might even come close to what they’re aiming to get by redistricting.”

Also, a short-term fix may have adverse long-term consequences, Rozell noted. In politics, as in physics, every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Something this drastic sets a precedent that invites in-kind retaliation later, when Republicans might control state government wall-to-wall.

Such a tit-for-tat escalation could doom independent redistricting, which Democrats once overwhelmingly embraced.

“I get it that this has become somewhat analogous to an arms race and that the Democrats don’t want to disarm,” he said. “On the other hand, there’s no denying that what the Democrats are proposing to do flies in the face of the position most of them took five years ago, which was very principled.”

Like a broad swath of Virginians, I find the GOP provocation and the Democrats’ response dispiriting.

I understand the Democrats’ argument. In the rabid partisanship ahead of November’s desperate, win-at-all-costs midterm election, expecting them not to respond to Texas Republicans’ naked power grab would be akin to expecting Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to greet Vladimir Putin and his invading Russian army at the gates of Kyiv with the key to the city.

The guardrails of civic and individual decency that once bounded acceptable political conduct are gone. Witness Trump’s seething, unhinged, ego-glutting litany of insults and grievances last Tuesday night that, at 107 minutes, was history’s longest State of the Union speech. (Virginia’s Democratic governor, Abigail Spanberger, delivered a scathing rebuttal that countered much of Trump’s vitriol.)

If Trump’s purpose was to further segregate Americans into hostile tribes and destabilize national cohesiveness, he succeeded.

I don’t know how this all ends. Nobody does. The Virginia Supreme Court has yet to take up Democratic appeals oftwo rulings by a Tazewell County judge in lawsuits Republicans filed to stop the referendum.

Nor do I know how — or even whether — I will vote in this referendum. I suspect I’m not alone.

I know without question that this fight has produced a malicious strain of politics in a state once known for respectful public discourse — or at least the veneer of it. I know I miss who we used to be.

---

---

gerry //?

an 2 26

Republicans have been fighting the decision to add another congressional seat to the state of Utah after its population in Salt Lake City expanded significantly. The seat has been caught up in litigation for six years, with Republicans well aware that such a seat would likely be a Democratic one.

On Monday, federal judges refused to further block the new district, Fox12 reported.

A three-judge panel unanimously rejected demands from the lawyers, commissioners mayors, and Reps. Celeste Maloy and Burgess Owens to stop the new district.

"Because we conclude Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits ... we DENY Plaintiffs’ preliminary injunction motion," the ruling said.

The only way to stop the new blue seat from being added is if the U.S. Supreme Court steps in.

Elections lawyer Marc Elias cheered the ruling, posting on X, "Federal Court three-judge panel DENIES republican motion for a preliminary injunction to block Utah's new congressional map from going in to effect. The new map will stand for the 2026 midterms. Democrats will likely gain 1 seat!"

State Sen. Nate Blouin, a Democrat, is among those running for the state. In a post on X he wrote, "Done deal. Vote for blutah. Vote for Blouin."

---

---

an 1 26

CNN analyst Harry Enten noted that President Donald Trump and GOP allies began a mid-decade redistricting effort in Texas, but the outcome appears to have shifted.

In 2025, when the effort began, Enten said Republicans appeared poised to benefit.

"But today, at this point, the most likely outcome is Democrats gaining from the mid-decade redistricting battle," he said.

He based this calculation on the redistricting fight itself, not on projections of individual House member elections.

"I wouldn't be surprised if it's tied. I wouldn't be surprised if Democrats actually gain two or three seats from the mid-decade redistricting battle. But the bottom line is this: it started out as a plus for Republicans, and now it looks like Democrats have fought back in a major way. It looks like it's going to be a plus for them nationwide," Enten said.

According to Enten, Republicans initiated the mid-decade redistricting effort, but Democrats have made significant gains in the process.

---

CONTEXT

an 1 26

One MS NOW producer is sounding the alarm about a comment President Donald Trump made during his extensive interview with theNew York Timesthat is telling about his 2026 intentions.

Kyle Griffin, executive producer of Weeknight wrote on Xthat the detail was a "BIG FLAG."

"Trump said during his interview with The New York Times that he regretted not ordering the National Guard to seize voting machines in swing states after his loss in the 2020 election. He doubted whether the Guard was 'sophisticated enough' to carry out the order effectively," Griffin said.

The comments come as the Washington Post reported Monday morning "if his party loses," in the 2026 midterm elections, it is expected that Trump will "sow doubt in their validity."

Trump's new plans included forcing Republican state lawmaker to redraw congressional lines in Republicans' favor. That step, however, was only the beginning. Trump is also pushing to make voter registration more difficult and end the use of voting machines and mail-in ballots.

"The administration has gutted the role of the nation’s cybersecurity agency in protecting elections; stocked the Justice Department, Homeland Security Department and FBI from top to bottom with officials who have denied the legitimacy of the 2020 election; given a White House audience to people who, like the president, promote the lie that he won the 2020 election; sued over state and local election policies that Trump opposes; and called for a new census that excludes noncitizens," the Post explained.

"The wide-ranging efforts seek to expand on some of the strategies he and his advisers and allies used to try to reverse the 2020 results that culminated in the attack on the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021," the report added.

Stanford Law School Professor Nathaniel Persily, who focuses on democracy and elections-related law, told the Post, “I’m concerned about chaos and uncertainty in the administration of the 2026 election. There is a kind of avalanche of potential changes that are being proposed, and it’s at a time when people have lost trust in the election infrastructure and everybody’s on edge.” 1/11? TRUMP TOLD GOP MOC ALL ELECTIONS ARE RIGGED?! NO PUSHBACK

The White House claims that they're focused on making sure only eligible American citizens vote.

While Trump has joked about canceling the 2026 election, he doesn't have the authority to do it because local and state officials handle elections — not the federal government. That will be the barrier to a lot of Trump's efforts to change mail-in ballots or bar certain voting machines.

Trump issued an executive order that aimed to stop any state from accepting mail-in ballots received after Election Day. In many states, as long as a voter has the ballot post marked by Election Day, it is legal. A lower court has blocked the order, but the U.S. Supreme Court will take up the matter this year.

In another matter, the Justice Department has been in a battle with at least 40 states and Washington D.C., demanding voter rolls with personal identifying information including birth dates and partial Social Security numbers. Ten states have agreed to cooperate with the DOJ.

Read the full list of efforts Trump has made to change the 2026 midterm elections here.

---

---

AN 12 25 CONTEXT HISTORY

In joining a national redistricting arms race sparked by President Donald Trump, Virginia Democrats say they may impose a maximalist gerrymander that would disadvantage four of the state’s five Republican congressional representatives.

Republicans are crying foul.

But 12 years ago, Republicans in the Virginia Senate broke tradition by trying to force through a mid-decade redistricting of their own in an effort to win an outright majority in the chamber, which at the time was locked in a 20-20 partisan tie.

Back then, Democrats were the ones howling with indignation.

The Senate Republicans’ 2013 redistricting bid caused such an uproar that major legislative issues that year grounded to a halt for two weeks. A semblance of order was restored only after House Speaker Bill Howell — resisting tremendous pressure from fellow Republicans — ruled the Senate action out of order.

The 2013 incident is a reminder of the length politicians of either party can go when given the opportunity to perpetuate their political power.

“A pox on Republicans for starting it,” said former Republican Lt. Gov. Bill Bolling in a recent interview, “and a pox on the Democrats for now wanting to be part of it.”

The redrawing of Virginia’s legislative districts has happened only once every decade, soon after Census population totals are updated. The only exceptions have been when courts ordered the General Assembly to correct violations of the federal Voting Rights Act.

But in 2013, Senate Republicans didn’t want to wait the better part of a decade (and two election cycles) to reverse maps that Democrats had forced on them two years earlier.

The Senate GOP came up with a mid-decade surprise. They drew more favorable maps that, if adopted, would have put the GOP in a much stronger position in the next general election, which was scheduled for November 2015.

They waited for the House of Delegates to send over a routine bill that contained small, technical adjustments to existing House districts. The plan was to amend the bill to include wholesale changes to all 40 districts.

With Bolling’s tie-breaking vote, Republicans could push the GOP-friendly measure through the Senate. Then, all they would need was the House of Delegates (controlled by a GOP super-majority) to go along and for Republican Gov. Bob McDonnell to sign it into law.

Jeff Ryer, the political staffer for the caucus, said he worried for months that the word would get out. “It had to be one of the best-kept secrets I’ve ever seen in the General Assembly,” he said.

But the plan hit a snag.

Bolling, who in December 2012 bowed out of a bitter gubernatorial nomination contest with conservative Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, told GOP senators that they could not count on his tie-breaking vote.

“It was not something I was comfortable with,” Bolling recently said of the mid-decade changes. “ I was exploring the possibility of an independent campaign for governor. I kind of carved out a different path. I think a lot of guys (in the caucus) understood it.”

Senate Republicans had to put their surprise plan on hold for a day when at least one Democrat was absent.

The opportunity came on Monday, Jan. 21, when the late Sen. Henry Marsh, D-Richmond skipped the daily floor session to attend President Barack Obama’s second-term inauguration in Washington.

Marsh’s empty seat on the Senate floor gave the Republicans a temporary majority of 20-19.

To present the plan, the caucus turned to a moderate with a good-guy image. Sen. John Watkins, R-Midlothian, was the most unlikely legislator to pull what the Charlottesville Daily Progress editorial page would call “one of the most politically cynical and morally flawed maneuvers” in years.

“It wasn’t something I dreamed up,” Watkins said in an interview earlier this month. “The leadership told me, ‘You’re probably the only person who can stand up on the floor and get this through.’”’

Stunned, Democrats exploded with fury. They called the move unconstitutional. They vowed to sue. They threatened to throw sand in the legislative gears. “The collateral damage from this will be immeasurable,” thundered Democratic Senate Minority Leader Richard Saslaw, D-Fairfax.

Undaunted, Republicans rammed through the new maps on a party-line.

The bill moved back to the House, where its fate rested with Howell. The Speaker was charged with determining if House rules would allow the amendment to proceed.

In a recent interview, Howell said that almost from the start he believed the Senate amendment was not “germane” because it went far beyond the narrow scope of the House bill. But he faced pushback from within his own caucus.

House Republicans excluded Howell from some closed-door caucus meetings, an extraordinary challenge to his power. “There was a group within the caucus who said, ‘Why in the world would you not do it’?” said Howell, who served as Speaker from 2003 until 2018.

“There was one guy who said, Why don’t we rush the podium and take him out?’” Howell deadpanned. “Luckily that didn’t happen.”

As pressure built on Howell and the legislative uncertainty entered a second week, Senate Republicans sought to justify their mid-decade surprise.

In a Richmond Times-Dispatch op-ed, Sen. Ryan T. McDougle said the GOP’s action was justified in undoing Democratic maps that he said broke up communities of interest, manipulated population deviations and ignored opportunities to create a sixth minority-majority district.

“Those opposed to (the new maps) may call it a gerrymander, but they’re wrong, both historically and technically – the current districting scheme is a gerrymander,” McDougle wrote.

Some Senate Republicans were more candid about the political motivations of their plan.

Then-Senate Republican Leader Tommy Norment chided Senate Democrats, who had similar partisan incentives when they held power in 2011, of wrapping themselves “in a shroud of political virtue.”

In a recent interview, Norment said his biggest objection to the 2011 maps was that they broke up Yorktown, Jamestown and Williamsburg, known as the Historic Triangle.

“My interest was more geographic than partisan,” he said.

In the GOP redo, Williamsburg was removed from the district of Sen. John Miller, a Newport News Democrat, and restored to Norment’s domain.

But the tinkering with Miller’s district didn’t end there. Republicans stripped 16 precincts from Miller’s home base of Newport News and pushed a portion of his district across the James River, where it cut a narrow, 40-mile path from Smithfield to the outskirts of Petersburg, breaking up communities of interest along the way.

If the Senate plan had become law, Miller’s district would have gone from +15-D to +5-R – a rightward swing of 20 points.

As the standoff dragged on into February, Watkins came to regret his decision to go along with the January surprise. His nice-guy image was compromised and Democrats’ support of his two big initiatives — transportation funding and uranium mining — evaporated.

“With a single, premeditated act of political survival, the 31-year lawmaker and chairman of the Senate committee that oversees big business managed to get on nearly everyone’s #%!@ list,” observed Jeff Schapiro in the second of two columns in the Richmond Times-Dispatch that excoriated Watkins.

Meanwhile, then-Sen. Donald McEachin, D-Henrico, took the floor to lay bare the pretense of Senate Republicans’ claim that their maps had been motivated by “being good to Black folks.” He noted that the plan would pack Black people into districts, diluting their power in the suburbs.

“That is plantation politics,” McEachin said.

On February 6, the crisis ended when Howell issued his ruling that the Senate amendment strayed too far from the narrow, technical intent of the House bill.

Looking back, Howell said that most people who pressed him to rule otherwise understood his belief that the legislature’s institutional integrity depends on consistent application of the rules.

“They did not try to make the case it was germane,” Howell recalled. “They were just saying, ‘Bill, this would really help if you saw it this way.’”

Those who know Howell well say he was placed under an incredible amount of pressure to look the other way.

“Bill Howell paid dearly for that decision,” recalled Del. Bobby Orrock, R-Spotsylvania, one his lieutenants.

When asked if the ruling was the most significant decision in his 15 years as speaker, Howell said, “It was up there pretty high.”

Howell added that he wasn’t looking to open old wounds or make himself appear holier than thou. “It was an easy thing to do what I did because it was right,” he said.

Looking back, Watkins regrets his decision to go along with the plan. He agrees that Howell made the right call.

“You go through life and sometimes you screw up. This was one of them,” said Watkins, who announced in 2015 that he would not seek re-election, ending a legislative career that began in 1982.

---

AN 12 25

'Left me high and dry': Pro-gerrymandering petitioners hired by GOP left 'stranded' in state

---

AN 12 25 DEATH THREAT, SWAT? EX GOV DANIELS AND LT GOV

A "band of stubborn Indiana state Senate Republicans" are poised to threaten what Politico calls President Donald Trump's "mid-cycle redistrictingscheme" this week.

Indiana Republicans will meet Monday to decide on a map, passed Friday by the Indiana House, "that supporters say would all but guarantee a 9-0 Republican congressional delegation and would be in effect for next year’s pivotal midterm elections," Politico reports.

"Senate President Pro Tempore Rodric Bray, who — along with roughly half his 40-member Republican majority — has resisted a four-month White House pressure campaign to redraw the congressional lines," Politico explains.

Present maps give the GOP a 7-2 advantage, but there's a problem as Trump's influence has waned within the ranks of Indiana's Republican state legislators, they note.

“The MAGA movement hasn’t permeated down to the state legislative level,” according to an Indiana Republican allied with Trump’s redistricting mission.

“Some people think Trumpworld is bluffing or doesn’t have any juice left and this will just go away if the state Senate rejects the maps,” the anonymous Republican tells Politico.

“The reality is that will only be the start of a long and brutal campaign to purge the state of anyone who opposed Trump on this issue. And there will likely be collateral damage that hurts even those who supported Trump.”

The pressure campaign has been intense, they report, but, according to Mike Murphy, a former Republican member of the Indiana House of Representatives, it may backfire.

"These guys and ladies are under intense, 24-hour-a-day pressure and I don’t know if they can withstand it, ultimately — we will see,” Murphy tells Politico.

“I feel badly for them and their families, primarily. They came to be public servants, and instead they are pawns in really what I consider to be Trump’s strategy to avoid a third impeachment and potentially set himself up a third term," Murphy adds.

---

AN 12 25

George Bush speechwriter and podcaster Tim Miller says anti-gerrymandering Republicans in Indiana are catching increasing threats of violence as the party’s unpopular policies continue to sink it.

Indiana Republicans are making another push at mid-decade gerrymandering, unveiling a new congressional map that eliminates all of the state's Democratic seats, flipping the state's congressional map from a Republican advantage of 7-to-2 to 9-to-0. Meanwhile, the pressure on Indiana Republicans who oppose the power grab has escalated to include threats of violence, with nearly a dozen state lawmakers reporting that they have been the victims of SWAT or doxing attempts.

State Senator Jean Leising (R-Decatur), who opposes Trump's redistricting effort, says she was the target of a pipe bomb threat, but said the threat “will not stop me from serving my community to the best of my ability.”

Miller said threats of violence will likely get more common as the Republican Party gets more desperate to counter massive nationwide rejection of the party’s policies and President Donald Trump.

“I think that if this [Indiana gerrymandering plan] doesn't work, you will see an escalation of this, in part because they're getting desperate,” Miller told MS NOW anchor Nicole Wallace. “I mean, the fact that this much pressure is being put on Indiana over two seats shows how desperate they are.”

“I think that Republicans expected that this gerrymandering gambit in the mid-decade was going to end up netting them 10 or 15 seats when you look at Texas, Missouri, Indiana, Florida, etc. But it's backfired in a lot of places, thanks in part to … some Republicans that have decided that they don't want to go down with the ship with Donald Trump, and thanks in part to Abigail Spanberger winning in Virginia and being able to redistribute Virginia, and Gavin Newsom in California. A few things have happened to now make it so that maybe they'll net a couple seats, which likely won't be enough if the political environment stays as it is now.”

The escalation of threats is unfortunate, said Miller, because state lawmakers don’t have the benefit of protective resources like members of Congress.

“They have legitimate reasons to be afraid,” said Miller. “Obviously, we saw the death of the state legislator in Minnesota, the guy that came to her house. You don't have Secret Service. I think that this threat is real and I think using it as a political bludgeon is real. … It's a category difference from another huge problem we have in our country, which is a crazy person gets radicalized and has easy access to firearms and goes after a politician. We've seen a lot of that. And that's bad.”

See the Bulwark podcast at this link.

---

AN 12 25

Red state GOP goes scorched earth to keep its gerrymandered map off the 2026 ballot - Alternet.org

Missouri Republicans have been doing everything they can to block a referendum to put the state’s gerrymandered congressional map on the 2026 ballot. The latest twist came late last month when Attorney General Catherine Hanaway accused a company hired to collect signatures for the campaign of human trafficking.

You read that right: Human trafficking.

If true, it would be a massive scandal — and a grave tragedy. But so far, the only evidence Hanaway has cited are “reports.”

After she made the initial accusation on social media, we sought clarification from her office on where she heard these allegations, what “reports” she was referring to and what led her to believe they were credible enough to seek assistance from ICE, the federal agency that enforces immigration laws.

Her office didn’t respond.

A few days later, Hanaway issued a statement announcing she had launched a formal investigation into the allegations. So we asked again for any information about the source of these claims. And this time, Hanaway’s office was quick to respond to tell us that because there is now an active investigation, no information can legally be released.

Welp…

Meanwhile, the Republican National Committee seized on the news, using it in a Black Friday–themed text blast to warn Missourians not to sign petitions from a group being investigated for “improper conduct.”

At the center of the accusation is Advanced Micro Targeting — the Dallas-based firm hired by a PAC called People Not Politicians to collect signatures. The allegation is that AMT is bringing undocumented immigrants into the state to assist with the campaign.

To put it another way, at a time when many immigrants — regardless of their legal status — live in fear of being detained and deported, AMT has allegedly been able to convince some to stand outside of government buildings with clipboards.

AMT has strongly denied the accusations. According to the company, all signature gatherers are vetted through the federal E-Verify system. Every petition form lists the name of the signature gatherer, and all forms are reviewed by a notary who checks the signature gatherer’s ID.

Adding to the drama, AMT filed a federal lawsuit alleging four consulting firms are involved in an effort to pay AMT employees to abandon their work, turn over any signatures they gathered and badmouth the company — all to sabotage the petition drive.

Some employees, according to the lawsuit, were offered up to $30,000 to quit and provide “intelligence” to opponents of the referendum.

In a recording provided to The Independent by a supporter of the referendum, an individual who approached signature gatherers in Kansas City is heard identifying himself as an employee of one of the firms named in the lawsuit, Let the Voters Decide.

Let the Voters Decide, which is based in Florida, called AMT’s litigation a “bogus lawsuit” full of “absurd claims.”

And so here we are: an alleged sabotage campaign; an immigration investigation; a federal lawsuit; and a litany of procedural roadblocks.

The GOP is pulling out all the stops to keep the gerrymandered map off the 2026 ballot.

It’s understandable. Of the 27 times a referendum has been placed on the Missouri ballot, voters have rejected the General Assembly’s actions all but twice — including overturning a congressional map in 1922.

The fight over Missouri’s gerrymandered map seems destined to spiral deeper into political intrigue. What began as a dispute over lines on a map has now become a test of the state’s democratic backbone.

---

AN 11 25

Texas’ plan to gerrymander its congressional map in favor of Republicans hit a massive snag on Tuesday as a federal panel of judges struck down the new district map on the grounds that they discriminated against minority groups.

The decision was handled down by a panel of three federal judges after a nine-day hearing last month in the case brought against the state of Texas voting rights advocates and minority voters. The judges — Obama, Reagan, and Trump appointees, respectively — found in favor of the plaintiffs arguments that the new map unlawfully gerrymanders based on minority communities.

As a result, the state will be required to continue using the congressional maps drawn back in 2021 and enjoined from using the new one passed into law over the summer. The fight is far from over, however, with Democracy Docket reporting that the ruling is highly likely to be appealed to the Supreme Court, which has been known to rule in favor of conservatives more often than not in recent years.

Congressional district maps are typically redrawn once a decade, based on new census data, to create districts that better reflect shifting demographics. Both parties have long been accused of redrawing state maps to better ensure they hang on to power, a process known as “gerrymandering.”

In defiance of this once-a-decade norm, the Texas state legislature passed new maps over the summer designed to create five new majority Republican districts in the state, thereby helping the party retain a majority in the House of Representatives. This came at the urging of President Donald Trump, who has called for as many GOP-controlled states as possible to do so in order to stop a potential Democratic majority in the 2026 midterms that could stunt his administration’s goals.

“When Texas tried to steal 5 seats, I said to watch the litigation my law firm had filed because we had a good chance of winning in court,” Marc Elias, founder of the voting rights focused Elias Law Group, wrote in a post to BlueSky following the ruling. “Today a federal court BLOCKED THE MAP.”

California’s recent Proposition 50 was drafted in response to this move from Texas, allowing the Golden State to alter its redistricting rules and redraw its map to create enough Democratic majority districts to counteract Texas. The measure was overwhelmingly approved by voters in the state, though it does feature a provision that will nullify itself if Texas’s gerrymander is definitively blocked.

---

an 11 25

President Donald Trump has publicly singled out one of the most senior Republican lawmakers in Indiana for failing to win over enough votes to support Trump's mid-decade redistricting proposal.

In a Monday post to his Truth Social platform, Trump called Indiana Senate president pro tempore Rodric D. Bray "a Complete and Total RINO [Republican in Name Only]" for his recent statement that "there are not enough votes" to redraw U.S. House of Representatives districts ahead of the next Census. He wrote in a subsequent post that he would support a primary challenger against Bray and anyone who supported him.

"Republicans must be TOUGH and SMART if we are going to WIN the Midterms," Trump wrote in his signature style of oddly placed capital letters. "The Rod Brays of Politics are WEAK and PATHETIC. I wish he cared about saving our Country as much as Democrats care about destroying it."

Indiana Gov. Mike Braun (R) later wrote on his official X account that he had a call with Trump, and encouraged Hoosier State lawmakers to not give up on mid-decade redistricting. Braun defended the plan by saying new maps were necessary "to ensure the MAGA agenda is successful in Congress."

"Indiana’s State Legislators must show up for work and take a public vote for fair maps to counter the gerrymandering in California and Illinois. But the Indiana State Senate is hiding behind closed doors and refusing to even bring redistricting to a vote," Braun tweeted. "Hoosiers deserve to know where their legislators stand and expect them to show up for work, not walk out and hide in the dark."

Braun's statement is misleading, as California and Illinois' redistricting measures were done in direct response to Republican redistricting in Texas and elsewhere. California's new maps – which were only put in place after Golden State voters approved a redistricting ballot initiative earlier this month — would likely give Democrats five new seats. Texas' maps are expected to tilt five Democratic seats toward Republicans. Ohio Republicans' redistricting map creates two likely new Republican seats, though Democrats are now more competitive in one GOP district. North Carolina Republicans are also likely to give the GOP one more U.S. House seat after their mid-decade redistricting effort.

Bray insisted last week that Republicans didn't have enough support in the Indiana state senate, even though the GOP controls 40 of 50 seats in the chamber. This means there are more than a 16 members of his own party who are willing to vote with the senate's 10 Democratic members against new redistricting maps.

---

AN 11 25

President Donald Trump’s push for mid-decade redistricting to prevent Republicans from losing control of the US House of Representatives appears to be on the verge of backfiring.

The latest blow to Trump’s nationwide redistricting efforts came in Utah, where District Court Judge Dianna Gibson shot down a proposed map drawn by Utah Republicans because it failed to abide by a 2018 ballot measure that restricted partisan gerrymandering in the state.

As reported by NBC News, Gibson instead approved a map that created “a solidly Democratic seat ahead of next year’s midterm elections,” thus giving Democrats a likely net gain of one seat in the US House.

Democratic National Committee Chairman Ken Martin hailed Gibson’s ruling and vowed that Democrats weren’t finished fighting Trump’s efforts to rig next year’s elections in his favor.

“Utah Republicans gerrymandered the maps because they knew they were losing power in the state,” he said. “Republicans doubled down when they chose to submit another gerrymandered map, but today, they were once again thwarted by impartial Courts. Democrats will continue to fight for fair maps in Utah, regardless of what Donald Trump and Utah Republicans try next. Every seat counts, and Democrats everywhere are fired up and ready to take back the House in the midterms in 2026.”

Dave Wasserman, a senior elections analyst at Cook Political Report, wrote in a post on X that the Democrats’ Utah victory, along with California voters’ approval of newly gerrymandered maps and reported plans to redraw maps in Virginia, have “pushed the mid-decade redistricting war closer to a draw.”

In a lengthy analysis published in Bloomberg on Tuesday, columnist Mary Ellen Klas argued that Republicans should take a deep breath before going all-in on Trump’s unprecedented mid-decade redistricting crusade, which began in Texas and subsequently spread to Missouri and North Carolina.

The issue, Klas explained, is that Republicans in those states have carved out more GOP-friendly districts based on assumptions that Republican gains among Latino voters and young men would hold in 2026. As last week’s sweeping Democratic victories showed, however, the GOP now appears to be hemorrhaging support among these two demographics.

“In New Jersey, 68% of Latino voters broke for Democrat Mikie Sherrill,” wrote Klas. “So did 56% of men under the age of 30. In Virginia, 67% of Latino voters went for Democrat Abigail Spanberger. So did 57% of men under 30. Many of these voters had voted for Trump last year. The exit polls show that both Sherrill and Spanberger won 7% of Trump’s 2024 voters, with Sherrill getting a whopping 18% of Trump’s Hispanic support in the state.”

If those trends hold over the next year, it could wipe out advantages the GOP had hoped to gain with its Texas gerrymander, which assumed that Latino voters who swung to Trump in the state would remain loyal partisan soldiers.

“Republicans are hardly going to admit it, but they should evaluate whether Trump’s push to ignite a redistricting arms race may have made it easier for a blue wave to wipe out more Republicans than if they had left their maps alone,” argued Klass.

In fact, some Republican strategists are already fretting about Trump’s gerrymandering plan, as one anonymous GOP insider told NBC News that if the endgame of the plan was “to net one seat across the country, then it will not have been worth it.”

A second anonymous GOP insider told NBC that there was “some concern” about whether Texas Republicans may have made themselves more vulnerable to a blue wave next year.

“In Texas, I do think there is some sense those seats will be ours, but nothing is guaranteed, so some concern there,” they said.

---

an 11 25

A California Republican lawmaker targeted by new gerrymandered maps slammed House Speaker Mike Johnson for backing President Donald Trump’s effort to intensify mid-term gerrymanders.

“I warned the Speaker for months that a redistricting war was (1) bad for the country, (2) unpopular with Members on both sides, and (3) likely to end as a wash. Yet he cheered it on rather than try to stop it,” said U.S. Rep. Kevin Kiley, whose Republican voters could be sprayed into neighboring Democratic districts after California opted to allow the Democratic legislature to re-shuffle districts to neutralize Trump’s mid-year gerrymander in Texas.

Kiley was responding to a post on X by Senior Editor and Elections Analyst Dave Wasserman of the Cook Political Report, claiming Democrats could eventually erase the gains Republicans got from Trump’s extreme gerrymander effort a few months ago.

“Between Ohio, Kansas, California, Virginia and now this huge win in Utah, Democrats have quietly strung together an impressive streak of victories over the past few weeks that have, surprisingly, pushed the mid-decade redistricting war closer to a draw,” said Wasserman, citing a recent judicial decision in Utah that creates one more Democratic district in the notoriously red state.

“If you score remap shifts between safe/competitive seats as +/-0.5, here's how the count looks today, to my eye: California: Dem +4.5 Missouri: GOP +1 North Carolina: GOP +0.5 Ohio: GOP +0.5 Texas: GOP +4 Utah: Dem +1,” Wasserman posted on X. “That leaves Republicans ahead by half a seat, [with] Florida, Indiana [and] Virginia the biggest remaining variables.”

One self-proclaimed “Reagan caucus” X user expressed similar anxiety over the national maps unfolding from Trump and Republicans’ effort to skew mid-term House elections.

“I recall being told by Republicans here in California that a redistricting war would result in the party picking up 15-20 seats in the House, especially if we defeated Prop 50. What happened?” the commenter complained.

“Yep. I don’t think Texas realizes every action has a reaction,” posted another MAGA X commenter. “Put another way I don’t think the politicos in Texas thought about the bigger picture and now GOP will get screwed.”

Kiley said he would be introducing “legislation to give every state an independent redistricting commission like the one Newsom just got rid of in California,” proclaiming on X that it was “time to end gerrymandering for good in the United States.”

---

PA 3 state scotus?

an 11 25

This week, Californians voted overwhelmingly for Prop 50, which replaces the Golden State's current U.S. House of Representatives district map with a new one designed to give Democrats an edge in five Republican districts. The California Republican Party (CAGOP) is now suing to stop the new maps from taking effect, but California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) is doubting that the suit will succeed.

According to Politico, the CAGOP sued in U.S. District Court in the Central District of California, claiming the new maps Prop 50 puts in place violate the 14th and 15th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution on the basis of race, "without cause or basis to justify it." The 14th Amendment contains the Equal Protection Clause, which requires states to provide fair legal treatment to all citizens. The 15th Amendment prohibits states from denying citizens the right to vote (which was ratified after the Civil War).

"While the Constitution entrusts States with designing congressional districts, the Supreme Court has also held that states may not, without a compelling reason backed by evidence that was in fact considered, separate citizens into different voting districts on the basis of race," the complaint read.

After Prop 50 passed, Steve Bannon — who was President Donald Trump's chief White House strategist during his first term — urged the Trump administration to have Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon (who oversees the Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division) sue California and win a temporary restraining order, and preventing Prop 50's new maps from going into effect through litigation. However, California Democratic Party leaders remain confident that Prop 50 will survive any court challenges.

On Wednesday, KCRA News political director Ashley Zavala reported that Gov. Newsom's office issued a statement in response to the CAGOP's lawsuit — and included a taunt against both Republicans and Dhillon.

"We haven’t reviewed the lawsuit, but if it’s from the California Republican Party and Harmeet Dhillon’s law firm, it’s going to fail," stated Newsom spokesperson Brandon Richards. "Good luck, losers."

---

AN 10 25

---

'Biblical justice': How North Carolina's 'born again' Chief Justice transformed America - Alternet.org

an 10 25 very long

In early 2023, Paul Newby, the Republican chief justice of North Carolina’s Supreme Court, gave the state and the nation a demonstration of the stunning and overlooked power of his office.

The previous year, the court — then majority Democrat — had outlawed partisan gerrymandering in the swing state. Over Newby’s vehement dissent, it had ordered independent outsiders to redraw electoral maps that the GOP-controlled legislature had crafted to conservatives’ advantage.

The traditional ways to undo such a decision would have been for the legislature to pass a new law that made gerrymandering legal or for Republicans to file a lawsuit. But that would’ve taken months or years.

Newby cleared a way to get there sooner, well before the crucial 2024 election.

In January — once two newly elected Republican justices were sworn in, giving the party a 5-2 majority — GOP lawmakers quickly filed a petition asking the Supreme Court to rehear the gerrymandering case. Such do-overs are rare. Since 1993, the court had granted only two out of 214 petitions for rehearings, both to redress narrow errors, not differences in interpreting North Carolina’s constitution. The lawyers who’d won the gerrymandering case were incredulous.

IFrame Content

IFrame Content

IFrame Content

“We were like, they can’t possibly do this,” said Jeff Loperfido, the chief counsel for voting rights at the Southern Coalition for Social Justice. “Can they revisit their opinions when the ink is barely dry?”

Under Newby’s leadership, they did.

Behind the closed doors of the courthouse, he set aside decades of institutional precedent by not gathering the court’s seven justices to debate the legislature’s request in person, as chief justices had historically done for important matters.

Instead, in early February, Justice Phil Berger Jr., Newby’s right-hand man and presumed heir on the court, circulated a draft of a special order agreeing to the rehearing, sources familiar with the matter said. Berger’s accompanying message made clear there would be no debate; rather, he instructed his colleagues to vote by email, giving them just over 24 hours to respond.

The court’s conservatives approved the order within about an hour. Its two liberal justices, consigned to irrelevance, worked through the night with their clerks to complete a dissent by the deadline.

The pair were allowed little additional input when the justices met about a month and a half later in their elegant wood-paneled conference room to reach a decision on the case. After what a court staffer present that day called a “notably short conference,” Newby and his allies emerged victorious.

Newby then wrote a majority opinion declaring that partisan gerrymandering was legal and that the Democrat-led court had unconstitutionally infringed on the legislature’s prerogative to create electoral maps.

The decision freed GOP lawmakers to toss out electoral maps that had produced an evenly split North Carolina congressional delegation in 2022, reflecting the state’s balanced electorate.

In 2024, the state sent 10 Republicans and four Democrats to Congress — a six-seat swing that enabled the GOP to take control of the U.S. House of Representatives and handed Republicans, led by President Donald Trump, control of every branch of the federal government.

The gerrymandering push isn’t finished. This month, North Carolina Republican lawmakers passed a redistricting bill designed to give the party an additional congressional seat in the 2026 election.

The Epicenter

Few beyond North Carolina’s borders grasp the outsize role Newby, 70, has played in transforming the state’s top court from a relatively harmonious judicial backwater to a front-line partisan battleground since his election in 2004.

---

an 10 25

America is currently at war over partisan gerrymandering. The Republican-controlled Texas legislature has just gerrymandered voting districts to create five more safe Republican US House seats, as demanded by Trump.

Then Missouri Republicans were ordered by Trump to enact a gerrymander to increase the states’ disproportionate Republican minority from 6-2 to 7-1 by cutting Democratic-leaning Kansas City voting districts down the middle. Now JD Vance is urging Indiana Republicans to gerrymander the only two remaining Democratic House districts out of existence.

In response, California Governor Gavin Newsom has proposed a ballot measure that would temporarily suspend California’s independent redistricting commission until 2030 and let the Democratic legislature redistrict Republicans out of five seats to match what Republicans have done in Texas.

A large majority of voters nationally don’t think partisan gerrymandering should be legal. According to a recent YouGov poll, 69% of Americans think partisan gerrymandering should be illegal and only 9% think it should be legal.

Chief Justice John Roberts (and all of his Republican colleagues on the Supreme Court) disagree with this vast majority of Americans. In 2019, Roberts’ 5-4 majority opinion in Rucho v Common Cause (joined by the four other Republicans on the Court) held that federal courts do not have the constitutional power to prevent partisan gerrymandering and restored blatantly partisan gerrymanders in North Carolina and Maryland.

IFrame Content

IFrame Content

IFrame Content

Since Roberts’ decision, partisan gerrymandering has exploded. According to Michael Li of the Brennan Center, partisan gerrymandering has given Republicans 16 extra seats in the House. Without that, Democrats would have a House majority and Republicans would not be able to pass the so-called “big beautiful bill” which has led to a government shutdown. As the Brennan Center states, “Gerrymandering decided House control.”

Roberts’ opinion conceded that partisan gerrymandering is “incompatible with democratic institutions” and “leads to results that reasonably seem unjust.” But Roberts then invented a procedural technicality to bar Federal courts from doing anything about it or to uphold the Constitutional principle of “one person, one vote.” Roberts claimed that partisan gerrymandering is a so-called “political question” that Federal Courts have no right to question and must be left to the states. Of course, when one party controls the state legislature, they have every incentive to draw voting districts to guarantee they never lose political power, no matter what the view of the voters is. Voters don’t get to pick their own legislators. Instead, legislators get to pick their voters. In her dissent—joined by Justices Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Breyer—Justice Kagan wrote:

"For the first time ever, this Court refuses to remedy a constitutional violation because he thinks the task is beyond judicial capabilities. And not just any constitutional violation. The partisan gerrymanders in these cases deprived citizens of the most fundamental of their constitutional rights: the right participate equally in the political process, to join with others to advance their political beliefs, and to choose their political representatives. In so doing, the partisan gerrymanders here debased and dishonored our democracy...enabl[ing] politicians to entrench themselves in office as against voters' preferences...They encouraged a politics of polarization and disfunction."

Is it any wonder that a NY Times/Siena poll taken last week found that only 33% of voters believe that America’s political system can still address the nation’s problems, while 64% believe the political system is too politically divided to solve the nation’s problems?

As former Senate Judiciary Committee counsel Lisa Graves argues in a new book, “[i]n the last twenty years the US Supreme Court has radically curtailed voting rights, undermined anti-corruption measures, encouraged extreme political gerrymandering, restricted the regulation of guns, and obliterated the constitutional right to control one’s reproductive choices. This transformation was orchestrated by a billionaire-backed reactionary political movement, whose interests Chief Justice John Roberts has been all too willing to serve.”

Citizens have no power to overturn a US Supreme Court decision. However, California citizens have the ability to equalize Texas Republicans’ gerrymander of five House seats. On November 4, they can pass Proposition 50 which lets the State legislature temporarily draw new congressional district maps through 2030, at which point the Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission would resume control of redistricting, and supports nonpartisan redistricting commissions nationwide.

It won’t completely block John Roberts’ 20-year long project to undermine democracy and judicially enact the increasingly MAGA Republican agenda. (It wouldn’t be an exaggeration to call it a “judicial coup”.) Indeed, this week SCOTUS heard oral arguments in a case where it appears that Roberts will lead the Republican majority to overturn Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act which protects the right of Black voters to have electoral representation. Such a ruling could likely flip as many as 19 House seats from Democratic to Republican, cementing a Republican House majority for the foreseeable future, regardless of the will of the voters.

Passing Proposition 50 is one thing Californians can do to fight back against Justice Roberts’ undemocratic judicial campaign, which has helped enable Trump’s authoritarianism. Mail-in ballots have already been sent out so California voters can cast “Yes” votes for Proposition 50 from now until November 4. Beyond that, thanks to John Roberts and his Republican colleagues on SCOTUS, other Blue states will have to be brought into the gerrymander wars and enact their own partisan gerrymanders to balance Republican gerrymanders to the extent possible.

---

GGL 9 25 Search Assist

The Missouri GOP is currently pushing to gerrymander the state's congressional districts, which would favor Republican candidates and potentially silence voters' voices. This effort is part of a broader strategy to maintain their supermajority in the legislature. komu.com democraticredistricting.com

Overview of Missouri GOP's Redistricting Efforts

The Missouri Republican Party is currently pushing for significant changes to the state's congressional districts. This effort is part of a special legislative session called by Governor Mike Kehoe.

Key Proposals

• Gerrymandering Congressional Districts: The proposed congressional map aims to favor Republican candidates by altering district boundaries, particularly affecting the Kansas City area. This would extend districts into more conservative rural regions.
• Changes to Initiative Petition Process: Another proposal seeks to modify how citizens can place measures on the ballot, potentially making it more difficult for voters to pass amendments to the state constitution.

Legislative Actions

• Filibuster and New Rules: Senate Republicans used a controversial tactic to end a Democratic filibuster against these proposals. They passed new rules that prioritize House bills, allowing them to fast-track the redistricting measures.
• Democratic Opposition: Democrats argue that these changes undermine their ability to propose important legislation and are primarily aimed at maintaining Republican power.

Public Response

• Protests and Criticism: There has been significant public outcry, including rallies organized by Democrats and various voting coalitions opposing the redistricting efforts. Critics claim that the proposed changes do not address pressing issues like unemployment and economic challenges in Missouri.

komu.com democraticredistricting.com

---

---

an 9 25

The Missouri Senate died at 1:42 p.m. Friday afternoon when Republican leaders refused to allow debate on a measure weakening the initiative petition process, GOP state Sen. Lincoln Hough said in an interview with The Independent.

A two-week special session to gerrymander Missouri’s congressional map and make it virtually impossible for voters to amend the state constitution ended Friday when Senate Republicans voted to cut off debate and steamroll both bills across the finish line.

Hough was one of only two Republicans who opposed every motion to cut off debate and voted against the bills.

About 20 minutes after the Senate adjourned, Hough said Senate President Pro Tem Cindy O’Laughlin visited his office and removed him as chairman of the powerful Senate Appropriations Committee. Hough has been chairman or vice chairman of the committee since he joined the Senate in 2019.

“She said, ‘we are tired of fighting with you,’” Hough said. ”To which my response was, ‘did you fight with me this week, or did I just go out here and vote no on something that was handed down to the Missouri Senate and a bunch of elected members who are not allowed to talk?’”

IFrame Content

IFrame Content

IFrame Content

IFrame Content

It was the second time Hough has bucked his party this year when it sought to deploy procedural maneuvers to shut down debate. The first came in near the end of the 2025 session in May on bills repealing voter-approved laws expanding sick leave and protecting abortion rights.

“What I’ve seen at the end of last session, and what I saw this week, is a dismantling of what the Senate is supposed to be,” Hough said.

O’Laughlin did not respond to text messages seeking comment on Hough’s removal as chairman or his description of how it occurred. As of Saturday morning, the change in the committee line-up had not been posted to the Senate website.

Hough said he is not sure if he is still a member of the committee.

“I’ll be honest with you,” he said. “When the news was delivered to me, I didn’t ask a lot of follow up questions.”

The other Republican who broke with his party on Friday was state Sen Mike Moon of Ash Grove. Reached by text message Saturday, Moon said he had not been told of any changes in his committee assignments. He chairs the Veterans and Military Affairs Committee and the Select Committee on Equal Protection and DEI.

Moon, who has been punished by Senate Republican leadership in the past for some of his actions, declined to comment on the removal of Hough as Appropriations Committee chairman.

Lawmakers were meeting in their second special session of the year to do the bidding of President Donald Trump and gerrymander the 5th Congressional District to unseat U.S. Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, a Kansas City Democrat. The Senate passed the new map first, shutting off debate after letting Democrats speak against it for about four hours.

Next came the proposal added to the agenda by Kehoe to require both a majority of statewide votes and a majority of the votes in all eight of the state’s congressional districts to pass constitutional amendments proposed by initiative petition.

But along with the motion to take up the measure, state Sen. Brad Hudson, a Republican from Cape Fair, sent the motion to cut off debate before it began.

“My understanding of how this process is supposed to work is, if someone brings a bill before the body, then members are given the opportunity to have a conversation about it,” Hough said. “Maybe, I mean, call me crazy, but maybe even draft amendments and think about ways to improve something or change something.”

Republicans used several unprecedented maneuvers to muscle the two measures to final passage. The steps were orchestrated from the start to get the bills finished by Friday afternoon.

When the Senate convened, O’Laughlin presented a new set of rules intended to sidestep every opportunity Democrats could use to stall proceedings.

As a result, no senator was allowed to introduce a bill during the special session, the daily journal was never presented to the body for approval and House-passed legislation became the chamber’s top official priority for the first time in its existence.

The procedural step to shut off debate, called the previous question, is commonly used by the majority in the 163-member Missouri House, where no member can speak for more than 15 minutes on a topic, to move priority legislation.

But until this year, it was a rare move in the Senate, where the rules allow a member to speak as long as they like on any subject once they have the floor. Invoking the rule requires a motion signed by 10 senators.

The previous question has been used to move four bills this year, twice in the regular session and twice in the special session. It was also used to implement the new Senate rules.

But it had never before been used to pass a bill without any debate at all.

“It’s pretty easy to pass legislation in the Missouri Senate if you don’t have to talk about it, and you can just bring it before the body and say, we’re not, we’re not going to have any discussion whatsoever,” Hough said.

The Republican Party, he said, is suppressing every element that doesn’t walk in lockstep with the Trump White House.

“It seems that if you have any independent thought, or even just raise a question, you have a problem with this Republican Party,” Hough said. “And that is not the Republican Party that, 15 years ago when I first ran for the House, that I was part of.”

His disagreement with the procedures used to pass the legislation didn’t upset the progress of the bills. Shutting off debate requires 18 votes, and the fewest on any motion was 19.

“This is a dark day in the Missouri Senate,” Hough said. “It is a dark day when policy differences lead to the dismantling of the institution and the removal of individuals from chairmanships.”

In his seven years on the appropriations committee, Hough has shown himself as detail-oriented and able to build consensus while taking a tough negotiating position during final budget talks with the House.

With one more legislative session in his term-limited tenure, Hough won’t have to worry about pleasing leadership.

The upcoming budget could prove to be the most difficult to write in many years. When Kehoe vetoed $300 million in spending items in June, the news release accompanying the action said the state budget office was forecasting a general revenue shortfall of nearly $1 billion in the coming fiscal year.

“We’re definitely,” Hough said, “going to have some conversations about the direction of the state’s finances next year.”

---

---

duck 8 25

48 Hills

https://48hills.org › 2025 › 08 › the-big-gop-money-attacking-newsoms-redistricting-plan

The big (GOP) money attacking Newsom's redistricting plan

6 days agoThe work of Charles Munger, Jr., who is a big GOP donor Here's the interesting thing: The mailers appear to be funded by Charles Munger Jr, the son of a billionaire investor who portrays himself as a supporter of fair elections.

2. Only include results for this siteHide site from these results

Deep-pocketed Republican donor launches 'misleading' mailers into Calif.

A quote plastered on the front of an anti-redistricting flyer prompted a clarifying statement from the organization

By Anabel Sosa,

Senior California Politics Reporter

Aug 27, 2025

California Gov. Gavin Newsom signs bills related to redrawing the state’s congressional maps on Aug. 21, 2025, in Sacramento, Calif.

Last week, scores of California households received a stark 8-by-11-inch flyer in the mail that declared, “We cannot save democracy by burning it down.” The mailer was sent out after Gov. Gavin Newsom announced that his proposal to redistrict California along partisan lines is headed to voters this November. But while the mailers, bankrolled by a major Bay Area donor to the Republic Party, were supposed to dissuade voters from approving the new congressional map, they included some misquotes that only led to more confusion.

The mailers were paid for by Protect Voters First, a campaign committee funded by Charles Munger Jr., a physicist who lives in Palo Alto and is the son of Warren Buffett’s late business partner. They urged voters to vote “no” on Proposition 50, the ballot measure for Newsom’s redistricting plan. The four-page mailer also had a quote from Gloria Chun Hoo, the president of the League of Women Voters of California, plastered on the front page: “Let’s protect the integrity of our democratic process and reject the dangerous idea of mid-cycle redistricting.”

The League of Women Voters, a leading good government group, immediately denied any involvement with Munger’s campaign.

A mailer from Protect Voters First in San Francisco. (Address details removed for privacy concerns.)

“You may have received a mailer from ‘Protect Voters First’ about the redistricting ballot initiative this November. By naming our organization and quoting Gloria Chun Hoo, the mailer wrongly implies that the League of Women Voters of California is part of their coalition and endorses the information contained in the flyer,” the organization said in a statement on Aug. 21. “This implication is not correct—we are not part of that coalition. The League of Women Voters of California did not authorize this action.”

A small attribution under the Hoo quote on the Protect Voters First flyer noted it had come from the Sacramento Bee. Hoo penned an op-ed for the paper that was published July 30, but it did not mention the Protect Voters First coalition.

Darius Kemp, the executive director of Common Cause, another good government group, said he was also quoted out of context. The flyer quoted him as saying “Point blank, this is a dangerous move” and defending independent redistricting as a system that works better. When reached for comment by SFGATE, Kemp referred to a news release issued by Common Cause on Aug. 22 that said, “Our position on mid-cycle redistricting is clear — we will not oppose mid-cycle redistricting efforts in states that meet our fairness criteria.”

Common Cause was initially critical of Newsom’s gerrymandering idea but later clarified its position before the mailers were sent out, saying in an Aug. 12 statement that the organization recognizes California’s effort as a “counterbalancing” measure in response to moves by Republicans in Texas. The organization has since said that the proposed new map for California meets its “fairness criteria.”

Charles Munger Jr., chairman of the Santa Clara County Republican Party, center, talks with Assemblyman Brian Jones, R-Santee, right, at the California Republican Party convention in Sacramento, Calif., Sunday, March 3, 2013.

:

While it’s still early days, it will be a two-month sprint for the “yes” and “no” campaigns to bring in millions of dollars — much of which will fund television ads and mailers like these that are targeted to sway undecided voters.

The national opposition campaign is led by former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, who is recruiting national donors to contribute to the Stop Sacramento’s Power Grab committee, according to Politico. He is reportedly aiming to bring in upward of $100 million. Protect Voters First has already dumped $10 million toward the “no” effort. Meanwhile, Newsom’s campaign committee, called the Election Rigging Response Act, has already brought in over $11 million to support the redrawing of California’s map.

So far, it’s not clear what impact Protect Voters First’s flyers will have. What is clear is that they’ve confused voters. Even with the clarifying statements from Hoo and Kemp, some people online raised questions about whether those clarifications would reach enough voters. Right after the flyers went out, Reddit sleuths were seeking answers about who was behind the effort. One poster called the flyer “misleading s—t,” while another dug deeper: “went to the website listed at the bottom. in small letters at the bottom of the webpage is the name of the sponsor of this whole thing: Charles Munger Jr. So googled him: He donates millions to Republican CA candidates. SO, you guys in CA need to be fighting that. This Munger guy has very deep pockets and is obviously trying to get people to oppose the CA redistricting.”

A mailer from Protect Voters First in San Francisco.

Amy Thoma Tan, a spokesperson for Protect Voters First, maintained that those quotes were taken directly from newspaper op-eds but did not directly respond to claims that they mislead voters into thinking these organizations support Munger’s coalition specifically. She also did not specify how many households were targeted.

“The mailers were sent to Californians, therefore focused on fighting the gerrymandering happening here. Our coalition opposes gerrymandering in all states,” Tan told SFGATE.

---