Tag: gerrymandering

Indiana Governor Calls Special Session to Redraw Congressional Maps

Indiana Gov. Mike Braun, a Republican, on Oct. 27 called for state lawmakers to return to Indianapolis for a special session to redraw the state’s congressional districts in an escalation of a growing multi-state, mid-cycle redistricting showdown.

President Donald Trump has increased pressure on Republican governors to call special legislative sessions to draw new congressional maps to give the GOP additional House seats in next year’s midterms, a key election in which the incumbent party in the White House historically loses seats in Congress.

The multi-state redistricting battle kicked off with Texas and Missouri, and now California Democrats have responded with a voter proposition to consider their own redistricting plan to blunt the GOP’s impact.

Missouri Gov. Mike Kehoe, a Republican, signed his state’s congressional redistricting bill into law on Sept. 28. California voters will vote in November on Proposition 50, which would allow the state government to redraw its districts in response to Republican gerrymandering in other states. Former President Barack Obama recently joined California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, in endorsing the ballot measure.

While lawmakers in Indiana had been more hesitant about redrawing their congressional maps and had held off for weeks on engaging in the effort, Braun is now calling for the Indiana General Assembly to convene on Nov. 3.

The plan would likely involve targeting the state’s First Congressional District that spans Gary and nearby cities in Indiana’s northwest corner near Chicago. Rep. Frank Mrvan (D-Ind.) has held the seat for three terms and is running for reelection next year.

Keep reading

Massive SCOTUS Case Could Guarantee House Control For GOP

The Supreme Court took a second look at a case that could result in handing the Republican Party guaranteed control of the House of Representatives last week, and initial reports suggest a major ruling is on the horizon. If the highest court in the land strikes down Section 2 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act in Louisiana v. Callais, the GOP’s hold over the House could become insurmountable.

Reports say that if Section 2 is removed, which has been interpreted previously as requiring the creation of majority-minority districts, the Republican Party could toss out a dozen Democratic-held districts in the South.

It all started when a group of voters challenged a 2024 congressional map by claiming that it pushes unconstitutional racial gerrymandering. This means the map sorts voters based on their race, which is a violation of the 14th Amendment.

The court heard two-and-a-half hours of oral arguments, with conservative justices signaling they are most likely going to undermine a key provision of the Voting Rights Act, though they might not strike it down completely.

“Wednesday’s oral argument was the latest chapter in a dispute that dates back to 2022, when Louisiana adopted a new congressional map in the wake of the 2020 census. Roughly one-third of the state’s population is Black, but the 2022 map had only one majority-Black district out of the six districts allotted to the state. That prompted a group of Black voters to go to federal court, where they argued that the 2022 map violated Section 2 of the federal Voting Rights Act, which bars discrimination in voting practices,” SCOTUS Blog reported.

U.S. District Judge Shelly Dick agreed that the 2022 map likely violated Section 2. She then forbade the state from using this particular map in future elections and ordered the state to create a new map featuring two majority-Black districts.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit supported that ruling. It then gave the state until January 15, 2024, to produce a new map; otherwise, the lower court would develop a plan for the 2024 elections.

Louisiana then created a new map that created a second majority-Black district. Complaints came forward from a group of voters who referred to themselves as “non-African American.” A three-judge federal district court ruled that the 2024 map violated the Constitution’s equal protection clause, as it sorted voters based on race. The court banned the state from using the map in future elections.

“In May 2024, the Supreme Court put the three-judge district court’s ruling on hold, which allowed the state to move forward with using the new map in the 2024 elections. Voters in the 6th District, the new majority-Black district, elected Cleo Fields, a former member of Congress who had represented another majority-Black district during the 1990s, to represent them,” SCOTUS Blog writes.

Louisiana and the Black voters then appealed to the Supreme Court, which listened to oral arguments for the first time since spring. The state stated that once the lower courts determined the 2022 map likely violated the VRA, it directed the state to redraw a map with a second majority-Black district. State Republicans’ primary goal was to provide protection for the state’s GOP incumbents, such as Speaker Mike Johnson and Rep. Julia Letlow, who is an active member of the House Appropriations Committee.

Keep reading

Key State Passes New Congressional Map ‘Locking In’ Additional GOP Seat

Duke University math professor Jonathan Mattingly conducted an analysis to discover if a new Trump-supported congressional map in North Carolina would result in the Republican Party locking in additional seats. The answer, he uncovered, is a resounding yes.

Three days before publishing his results on Sunday, the GOP revealed another mid-decade congressional map proposal that would bolster the party’s grip in Congress. It does so by expanding the boundaries of the state’s 1st Congressional District, which is currently held by Democrat Don Davis, pulling in some of the 3rd Congressional District, which is represented by Republican Greg Murphy.

The 1st District is the only one in the state considered a swing district, meaning it’s not a guaranteed win for either Democrats or Republicans.

A report from The News Observer shared Mattingly’s findings after the state’s Senate passed the map, sending it down to the House for final approval.

“Lawmakers returned to Raleigh on Monday and are expected to pass the proposed map, after failing to pass a full state budget before the end of the fiscal year in June or approve during its session last month additional funding to avoid Medicaid cuts,” the report said.

Mattingly claims the new map is all but certain to shift a House seat to the GOP for the foreseeable future if passed by the state’s full legislature.

“The previous map was not very responsive to changing public sentiment. But there was one district that was in doubt, and this one (new map) has largely removed that district,” he explained. “It’s very effectively shifted one district from the Democrats to the Republicans,” and “seems to lock in, 11-3, no matter what happens.”

North Carolina’s congressional map was redrawn in 2023 by the Republican-led legislature in order to provide the GOP with a boost, leading to the election of 10 Republicans and four Democrats during the 2024 elections. The article goes on to say that the map replaced a previous one drawn up by court-appointed “experts” for the 2022 midterm elections as a replacement for one drawn following the 2020 Census. It was ruled unconstitutional by federal courts in Harper v. Hall.

The map that was drawn after the intervention of the court led to a 7-7 split in the 2022 elections. The North Carolina Supreme Court gained a GOP majority that year, and the new court ruled it didn’t have jurisdiction over claims of partisan gerrymandering.

Mattingly’s latest analysis reveals the latest map would preserve a total of three seats for the Democratic Party under a variety of scenarios taking into consideration how residents might vote. Even if the statewide vote should shift significantly along party lines, the same number of Republicans, 11, would pull in victories.

“That pattern appears in a graphic from the new analysis, which looks at several statewide elections from 2016 and 2020, including races for governor, auditor and others, where the Democratic vote share ranged from just over 46% to more than 52%. The graphic shows how many seats Democrats and Republicans would likely win under different simulated map scenarios. It indicates that under the newly proposed map, Democrats would win only three seats across more than 10 elections tested, except in one case — the 2020 auditor’s race,” The News Observer wrote.

“When the electorate changes its mind dramatically — when it switches from 46% statewide to a 52% … you’d like to have a map with a number of districts that would change who controls them,” Mattingly stated in his analysis.

Researchers used the results from past elections to show how the new map packs voters into a district or splits them across district lines, which they claim will dilute their influence.

Keep reading

Despite Headlines, There Is No Reduction in Voting Rights

Liberals and Democrats are claiming that the Supreme Court is poised to make a ruling that will restrict voting rights because race will no longer be considered in districting.

This is false.

Under the U.S. Constitution, all adults aged 18 and over have the right to vote, and they will continue to have that right. No ruling or policy under consideration eliminates or limits that constitutional guarantee.

What critics are truly upset about is that race will no longer be used to determine electoral districting. The Trump administration argued that race had been overemphasized in the process, violating the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause. The move aims to ensure that district boundaries are drawn based on population and geography, not racial calculations.

This debate, and the exaggerated claims that someone is losing their rights, reveal a deeper divide between the two parties. Republicans argue that equality means the same rules for everyone, regardless of race. Democrats, on the other hand, insist that equality requires different rules for different groups based on race

The Supreme Court appeared inclined to further restrict the use of race in redistricting. During recent arguments, conservative justices, including Brett Kavanaugh and Chief Justice John Roberts, questioned whether race-based remedies should continue indefinitely, suggesting that the Court may soon impose new limits on when race can factor into drawing congressional maps.

The Court’s three liberal justices, however, warned that weakening Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act would effectively dismantle the law and reduce minority representation in Congress.

Democrats argue that Section 2 is essential for protecting minority voting rights and warn that a conservative victory in the current Louisiana case could trigger widespread redistricting. They claim this would reduce the number of minority-held seats, particularly across the South.

However, the United States does not have a quota system, and no congressional seats are specifically designated as “minority seats.” Fair, race-neutral voting would simply result in all seats being awarded to the candidates who receive the most votes, regardless of race.

The Court’s decision, expected by mid-2026, could mark another major rollback of federal race-based policies, following the 2013 elimination of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act and the 2023 decision ending affirmative action in college admissions.

Democrats claim that minority “voting power” or “electoral influence,” will be diluted. The Act prohibits voting practices that “deny or abridge the right to vote on account of race.” Over time, courts have interpreted “abridge” to include not only preventing people from voting but also drawing district lines that intentionally dilute minority voting strength. Democrats argue that the Act ensures the right for every vote to carry equal weight and influence.

Keep reading

Here Are 6 Key Moments From SCOTUS Arguments In Landmark Race-Based Redistricting Case

UPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES — The U.S. Supreme Court held oral arguments in a pair of high stakes redistricting cases that could significantly reshape American electoral politics.

Known as Louisiana v. Callais and Robinson v. Callais, the matter focuses on a dispute over the use of race in Louisiana’s congressional map. While the state’s initial map included a single black-majority district, a lawsuit and subsequent legal battle led lawmakers to redraw the map to include a second black-majority district, producing another legal battle that centered on the state’s allegedly unlawful use of race when creating the new map.

During oral arguments, the justices probed parties on the facts of the respective cases and the longstanding judicial conflict over provisions of the Voting Rights Act (Section 2) and 14th Amendment (equal protection clause). Here are some of the biggest moments from the hearing.

Jackson Said What About the Disabled?

Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson has never been one to shy away from making ill-advised statements, whether they be in interviews or opinions. So, it wasn’t surprising when the Biden appointee suggested race be considered by states in redistricting because black Americans are systemically “disabled” and don’t have legitimate access to the elections process.

“Congress passed the Americans with Disabilities Act against the backdrop of a world that was generally not accessible to people with disabilities, and so it was discriminatory in effect because these folks were not able to access these buildings,” Jackson said, effectively arguing that it doesn’t matter whether such discrimination is intentional or not.

“I guess I don’t understand why that’s not what’s happening here. … We are responding to current-day manifestations of past and present decisions that disadvantage minorities and make it so that they don’t have equal access to the voting system, right? They’re disabled … We say that’s a way in which you see that these processes are not equally open.”

Thomas Asks a Simple (Yet Meaningful) Question

As the longest serving member of the current court, Associate Justice Clarence Thomas has often served as a critical voice of reason in many matters that come before the highest bench in the land. One of the ways he does this is through simple, yet meaningful, questions to parties in oral arguments.

While questioning Louisiana Solicitor General Ben Aguiñaga, Thomas asked “what role” the federal district court’s block on the state’s initial map “play[ed] in development of” the new map that included a second black-majority district. The state solicitor general disclosed that the court’s order is the “only reason” Louisiana drew a new map.

“Justice Thomas, [that court decision] is the only reason [this new map] exists,” Aguiñaga said. “We fought tooth and nail in the Robinson litigation itself in telling the courts that we did not think the Constitution permitted us to draw a second majority-black district. As you know, under protest, we drew [the new map] because the threat was that the federal courts would do it if we didn’t.”

“We would never pass [the new map] in the first instance without Robinson, Justice Thomas,” he added.

[READ: In Race-Based Redistricting Battle, Louisiana Urges SCOTUS To Uphold America’s ‘Color Blind’ Constitution]

DOJ Official Silences Sotomayor

Arguing on the side of Louisiana, Principal Deputy Solicitor General Hashim Mooppan got into a testy exchange with Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor over the Pelican State’s creation of a second-black majority district.

In debating the racial and political motivations behind the creation of maps like Louisiana’s, Mooppan noted the racial double standard that exists where if the block of voters in question were white, there wouldn’t be a debate about whether there should be an additional district tailored to their community.

“If these were white Democrats, there’s no reason to think they would have a second district. None,” Mooppan said. “And so what is happening here is their argument is, because these Democrats happen to be black, they get a second district. If they were all white, we all agree they wouldn’t get a second district. That is literally the definition of race subordinating traditional principles.”

Keep reading

“Black” voting districts are unconstitutional, unfair, and condescending

The map shows the contorted Congressional District in Louisiana that is at issue in the Supreme Court case that was argued yesterday.

You won’t see this map in most of the news reports on the case – not because it’s not newsworthy, but because it is. This picture speaks a thousand words about the absurdity at issue.

All parties to the case – and the Supreme Court Justices, as well – agree that this strange amalgamation was created for the express purpose of establishing a district that is supposedly Black* so that Blacks could be assured of electing Black representatives.

(I say “supposedly Black” because most Blacks in Louisiana, as in other American states, are actually of mixed race.)

There are several problems with this notion of Black Congressional Districts. First, it assumes that people identifying as Blacks can be represented in Congress only by other people identifying as Blacks. Why is that the case? I’m white and I’ve voted for Black candidates, and I’m sure many Blacks have voted for white candidates. In fact, Donald Trump got a substantial share of the Black vote last year.

Second, the flip side of concentrating Blacks into Black districts is to concentrate whites into white districts. If we’re to have separate Congressional Districts, should we also have separate schools? Separate drinking fountains?

In a region of the country with a sordid Jim Crow history of “separate but equal,” having separate Congressional Districts strikes me as a vile throwback.

Third, what happens if one of the white districts in Louisiana elects a Black? That would result in Blacks having too many seats, right? Conversely, what happens if a Black district elects a white? Does that mean we need to go back to the racial gerrymandering board to re-draw the districts again?

Fourth, this notion that Blacks are entitled to Congressional representation in exact proportion to their population (or more in the event a Black gets elected in a white district) would seem to apply equally to other races.

In Washington State, for example, about 10% of the population is of Asian descent. Many of their ancestors were exploited and discriminated against. Should we gerrymander the Congressional Districts in Washington to ensure that 10% of the representatives are Asian?

What do we do if the Asian voters don’t go along? What do we do if they “wrongly” vote for a white or Black or Hispanic rather than for the Asian candidate that they’re supposed to vote for? What if they vote for politicians on the basis of policy, not race? Or on the basis of the content of their character, not the color of their skin?

Gee, that’d be horrible, huh?

Keep reading

Obama Does Ad for Gavin Newsom on Redistricting – Accuses Republicans of Trying to ‘Rig’ the Next Election 

Former President Obama just will not go away. It seems like every other day, he is on a podcast, doing an interview, or making news by commenting on the issues of the day.

At the same time, he seems like the incredible shrinking man, because his legacy is being gutted by Trump’s second term.

Now he is doing ads for Prop 50 in California, in which he accuses Republicans of trying to rig the next election.

Breitbart News reports:

Barack Obama Claims Republicans Want to ‘Steal’ Seats, ‘Rig’ Election in Ad for Newsom’s Gerrymandering Proposal

Former President Barack Obama and California Governor Gavin Newsom are urging Californians to vote in favor of Proposition 50, a ballot measure that would replace the state’s independent redistricting system with a legislature-approved map projected to eliminate several Republican-held congressional districts.

On Tuesday, California Governor Gavin Newsom posted on X, “Listen to @barackobama,” sharing a new video featuring former President Barack Obama encouraging voters to support Proposition 50 in the state’s November 4 special election.

In the video, Obama says:

“California, the whole nation is counting on you. Democracy is on the ballot November 4. Republicans want to steal enough seats in Congress to rig the next election and wield unchecked power for two more years. With Prop 50, you can stop Republicans in their tracks. Prop 50 puts our elections back on a level playing field, which preserves Independent Redistricting over the long term, and lets the people decide. Return your ballot today. Vote yes on 50.”

Keep reading

In Race-Based Redistricting Battle, Louisiana Urges SCOTUS To Uphold America’s ‘Color Blind’ Constitution

Is the use of race in the redistricting process unconstitutional?

That’s a key question the U.S. Supreme Court will be considering in a pair of high-profile cases set to be argued before the justices on Wednesday. Known as Louisiana v. Callais and Robinson v. Callais, the matters provide the court with the opportunity to end longstanding conflicts between the Constitution and race-centric voting provisions that have plagued states and the redistricting process for decades.

We believe these cases are “good vehicle[s] for the Supreme Court to address some of these issues that have been percolating for a very long time,” Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill told The Federalist.

As The Federalist previously reported, the origins of the dispute date back to spring 2022, when the Louisiana Legislature drafted a congressional map with a single black-majority district. This prompted a group of plaintiffs — represented by left-wing groups like the ACLU — to sue, alleging that the map “dilut[ed] black voting strength” and therefore violated Section 2 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act.

Following an injunction barring the map’s implementation by a district court judge, continued litigation in the case ultimately resulted in the state redrawing the map to include a second black-majority district. This led to another lawsuit from a different group of plaintiffs, who claimed the state unlawfully prioritized race in the map’s creation and therefore violated the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause. A three-judge panel on a separate district court agreed with these plaintiffs and blocked the new map’s implementation.

While the Supreme Court agreed to take up the case and was expected to issue a verdict during its 2024-2025 term, the justices announced on the final day of the session that it would be rehearing arguments in the case this fall. The court notably issued an order in early August instructing parties in the case to address the question of “[w]hether the State’s intentional creation of a second majority-minority congressional district violates the Fourteenth or Fifteenth Amendments to the U. S. Constitution.”

Keep reading

HERE WE GO AGAIN – In California Election For Congressional Redistricting – “See Through” Ballot Envelopes Allow You to See How Voter Voted

Another California election and another corrupt result in the works.

California doesn’t have elections.  They have madness and those with oversite gaslight the entire sham. The state is codifying unconstitutional election activities and like communist takeovers throughout history, no one is stopping them. 

BALLOT HARVESTING and MAIL-IN BALLOTS

Since California went to ballot harvesting the results have been devastating for the GOP in Orange County, California and across the state. Heritage reported in 2019:

Vote harvesting is the collection of absentee ballots from voters by a third party who then delivers them to election officials. The term “vote harvesting” was essentially unknown to the general public until the North Carolina State Board of Elections overturned the results of the 2018 election for the Ninth Congressional District due to illegal vote harvesting, what the board called a “coordinated, unlawful and substantially resourced absentee ballot scheme.”

It was also raised as a concern in California after the unexpected losses of Republican-held congressional seats, including in Orange County, a traditional Republican stronghold, where the registrar of voters said that individuals were “dropping off maybe 100 or 200 ballots” at a time.

Ballot harvesting is still in place and all registered voters receive a ballot for the election in the mail.  The chain of custody surrounding ballots harvested in the state is not adequate or is non-existent.  Who knows where the completed ballots come from?

VOTER IDENTIFICATION

Not only is it almost impossible to determine where a ballot came from, it is also impossible to determine who the ballot came from.  Local governments in the state can’t ask for ID’s from voters.

California Governor Gavin Newsom has signed legislation that prevents local governments from requiring voters to present identification at the polls, a law aimed at curbing conservative efforts in cities like Huntington Beach.

Californians literally have no idea who sent in the millions of ballots counted in the 2024 Election.

ELECTION OBSERVER VOTER SIGNATURE CHALLENGES DENIED

We can add to the above list this additional lack of transparency.  Election observers were prevented from the reasonable ability to observe the 2024 Election.  If they identified anything, they lacked the ability to do anything about it.

Keep reading

Democrats Claim Racism as New Maps Force Them Out of Texas Strongholds

The Democrat stronghold in Texas is collapsing, and their own lawmakers are now turning on each other. 

After Republicans passed new congressional maps—pushed at the request of President Donald Trump—Democrats now face the reality of fewer safe seats and the possibility of political extinction in key parts of the state.

Representative Lloyd Doggett, one of Austin’s longest-serving Democrats, has already announced he will step aside if the new maps hold. 

His exit would clear a path for Greg Casar, but it also highlights the brutal truth: Democrats don’t have enough blue districts to go around anymore.

The biggest shakeup is in Houston. 

Representative Al Green, who has represented the 9th District since 2005, saw his district effectively redrawn. 

Only 5% of his old base remains. Most of it was folded into the new District 18, once held by Sheila Jackson Lee and Sylvester Turner. 

With a special election scheduled, Green is expected to jump into that race—but he’ll be battling other Democrats in what is now a three-seat squeeze. 

Houston went from having four Democrat seats to three, guaranteeing that at least one Democrat seat is now vacant.

Dallas-Fort Worth Democrats face the same disaster. 

Marc Veasey of Fort Worth has been pushed into Dallas, where Julie Johnson already sits. 

Her district, however, is now heavily Republican, meaning she must either take on Veasey or run a suicide campaign. 

Meanwhile, Jasmine Crockett survives unscathed in her district, and Republicans like Beth Van Duyne stand ready to pick up the pieces.

Democrats have responded with lawsuits. 

The NAACP, LULAC, and the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law claim the maps discriminate against minorities. 

But this playbook is nothing new. Back in the 1990s, Democrats used redistricting to carve out majority-Black and majority-Hispanic districts for political gain.

Keep reading