Tag: gerrymandering

Texas Governor Gregg Abbott on US Congressional Redistricting – “We Are Going to Eliminate Using Race to Draw These Congressional Lines”

Texas Governor Greg Abbott was on “Sunday Morning Futures” with host Maria Bartiromo to talk about redistricting.

Governor Abbott explained that the Democrats have drawn lines to favor their party largely based on race and that the Supreme Court ruled that this is no longer allowed.

“Give us your assessment of the impact of the Supreme Court rulings, and what are you expecting the impact to be of these new maps?” Bartiromo asked.

“The Supreme Court ruling in the Louisiana case is similar to the Supreme Court ruling in the Texas case. The Supreme Court just applied a principle that most Americans already understood,” Abbott said.

“For example, in a hiring decision in the United States, everybody knows an employer cannot engage in racial discrimination. Now the court is just making it clear that the same hiring decision when voters hire who their member of Congress is going to be there cannot be racial discrimination,” Abbott continued.

“The fact of the matter is, for decades, the Democrats have been using racial discrimination to draw these crazily drawn lines to try to protect Democrats,” Abbott said.

“We are going to eliminate using race to draw these Congressional lines. It means that, especially in the southern states, we are going to add maybe a dozen more Republicans to the United States Congress,” Abbott explained.

“We will finally make those districts look a whole lot more compact,” Abbott said.

Governor Abbott used the New England states as an example of Democrat control. He explained that with many Republican voters, there is no representation of them in Congress in those states due to the drawing of district lines based on race.

“In all of the New England states, there are millions of Republican voters, and yet there are zero Republicans who represent New England in the United States Congress,” Abbott continued.

“It’s time for the Democrats to stop being such hypocrites and finally have everybody across the country to stop using race as a reason to draw Congressional lines,” Abbott commented.

Keep reading

Democrat Rep. DelBene OUTRAGED After Supreme Court Blocks Race-Based Gerrymandering, Calls Ruling “Sad” for Democracy

Democrats have spent years presenting themselves as defenders of democratic institutions. That message becomes significantly harder to sustain when party leaders openly criticize constitutional rulings simply because those rulings disrupt their political strategy.

That contradiction was on full display during a recent interview on MSNOW when Rep. Susan DelBene reacted to the Supreme Court’s decision to block Louisiana’s race-based congressional map.

DelBene called the ruling a “sad day for democracy.”

The statement was revealing—not simply because of its rhetoric, but because of what the underlying case actually involved.

The Supreme Court stepped in after concerns that Louisiana’s congressional map relied too heavily on race when drawing district boundaries. The broader constitutional question is straightforward: should states be allowed to sort voters by race when determining political representation?

For many Democrats, the answer appears to be yes—at least when doing so benefits their electoral prospects.

During the interview, DelBene attempted to shift the conversation away from the constitutional concerns surrounding the map itself. Instead, she argued that courts should not be involved in decisions like this and suggested Congress should rewrite voting laws.

That argument ignores the basic function of the judiciary.

Courts exist to determine whether government actions comply with constitutional protections. When legislatures create policies that potentially violate equal protection principles, judicial review is not activism—it is a core constitutional responsibility.

DelBene also accused Republicans of attempting to “rig the system” because they are allegedly losing support nationwide.

That argument became even more contradictory when MSNOW raised the possibility of Democrats aggressively redrawing congressional districts in states like California to offset Republican redistricting efforts in states such as Texas.

DelBene did not reject the idea.

Instead, the conversation reflected a broader problem that has increasingly defined modern redistricting battles: many politicians oppose gerrymandering only when the opposing party benefits from it.

That is not a serious institutional position, but a transactional one.

Keep reading

More Devastating News for Democrats

The Supreme Court’s bombshell ruling striking down racial gerrymandering under the Voting Rights Act sent shockwaves through the political landscape this week — and Southern Republican governors wasted no time acting on it. For Democrats, who have spent years leaning on race-based district engineering to protect their congressional seats, the timing couldn’t be worse.

Alabama and Tennessee both called special legislative sessions on Friday to redraw their congressional maps, and the dominoes are already starting to fall across the South.

Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey moved quickly, calling lawmakers into special session and signaling she wants the state ready to hold new primary elections if the courts move fast enough to allow it. Right now, Alabama’s May 19 primaries are set to proceed using a court-ordered map that artificially packs black voters into two districts — a map the Supreme Court’s ruling makes unconstitutional. Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall filed an emergency motion Friday asking the court for a quick answer on whether the state can revert to its previously drawn map, which has just one majority-black district and would almost certainly deliver an additional Republican seat in Congress.

“By calling the Legislature into a special session, I am ensuring Alabama is prepared should the courts act quickly enough to allow Alabama’s previously drawn congressional and state Senate maps to be used during this election cycle,” Ivey said Friday afternoon.

Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee followed suit, calling his own special session to review the state’s congressional map. The current map includes a single Democratic-controlled district anchored in Memphis, and Lee’s office has warned that “any change to Tennessee’s congressional map must be enacted as soon as possible,” ahead of the August 6 primary.

It’s not hard to read the tea leaves on where this is headed.

Keep reading

Governor Kay Ivey Calls Special Session to Redraw Alabama Maps – Delivering a COMPLETELY REPUBLICAN Congressional Delegation

It is now official.

Alabama Governor Kay Ivey has called a special session of the Alabama Legislature for Monday, May 4, ordering lawmakers back to Montgomery to redraw the state’s congressional maps after the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling declaring race-based gerrymandering unconstitutional.

In a formal proclamation issued Friday, Ivey stated the Legislature would consider “primary elections” legislation and redraw districts whose boundaries were altered by prior court rulings, injunctions, or judicial orders.

That means Alabama Republicans are moving swiftly to reclaim control of congressional lines that had been reshaped through years of legal warfare and activist court intervention.

For years, Alabama has been at the center of a bitter redistricting battle after left-wing groups sued to force the state into creating a second Black-opportunity congressional district. Federal courts repeatedly interfered with maps passed by elected lawmakers, overriding the will of Alabama voters.

But the legal landscape changed dramatically this week after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against the use of race as the predominant factor in redistricting, dealing a massive blow to the race-based mapmaking agenda pushed by Democrats and activist groups.

Keep reading

Barack Obama Weighs In On Supreme Court “Gutting” Voting Rights Act by Striking Down Louisiana’s Racially Gerrymandered Map and It Instantly Backfires

Former President Barack Obama lashed out at the United States Supreme Court for crippling the racial gerrymandering schemes practiced by his party, and Americans were quick to put him in his place.

As The Gateway Pundit reported, the Supreme Court issued a 6-3 ruling on Wednesday, correctly declaring Louisiana’s newly-drawn Democrat-friendly Congressional map an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.

The case, State of Louisiana v. Phillip Callais (and the related Press Robinson v. Phillip Callais), stems from Louisiana’s cowardly lawmakers caving to activist left-wing judges and creating a second “majority-minority” congressional district designed to elect a Democrat.

While the decision does not abolish the Voting Rights Act (VRA) or Section 2, ABC News notes that it raises the bar for challenges to election maps that liberal critics claim limit the ability of minority voters to elect candidates of their choosing, even if lawmakers did not intend to discriminate.

Leftist Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan whined in her dissent that the “gutting of Section 2 puts that achievement in peril.”

“If other states follow Louisiana’s lead,” Kagan added, “the minority citizens residing there will no longer have an equal opportunity to elect candidates of their choice.”

Obama agreed with Kagan that the VRA was gutted and slammed the Court for not only “weakening” minority voting power but “abandoning its vital role in ensuring equal participation in our democracy.”

“Today’s Supreme Court decision effectively guts a key pillar of the Voting Rights Act, freeing state legislatures to gerrymander legislative districts to systematically dilute and weaken the voting power of racial minorities – so long as they do it under the guise of ‘partisanship’ rather than explicit ‘racial bias,” Obama wrote.

“And it serves as just one more example of how a majority of the current Court seems intent on abandoning its vital role in ensuring equal participation in our democracy and protecting the rights of minority groups against majority overreach,” he added.

“The good news is that such setbacks can be overcome. But that will only happen if citizens across the country who cherish our democratic ideals continue to mobilize and vote in record numbers – not just in the upcoming midterms or in high-profile races, but in every election and every level.”

Keep reading

Republicans Could Gain DOZENS of House Seats After SCOTUS Outlaws Racial Gerrymandering — Here’s How

Republicans could pick up as many as 27 additional House seats following the Supreme Court’s decision to curb race-based redistricting, a shift that could reshape the 2026 midterm map.

The projection stems from analysis of how congressional districts may be redrawn now that states are no longer required to prioritize race when complying with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.

Estimates indicate that weakening Section 2 enforcement could ultimately produce even larger gains, with Axios reporting that 27 seats could shift toward Republicans over time.

The changes would be concentrated primarily in Southern states, where previous maps were challenged and altered to create additional majority-minority districts.

With the Court ruling that racially gerrymandered maps are unconstitutional, states now have broader authority to redraw districts using traditional and political considerations rather than racial targets.

The impact could be significant given the current balance of power in the House, where relatively small seat changes determine control.

The Louisiana case at the center of the ruling involved a dispute over a second majority-Black district added after legal challenges.

A group of voters later sued, arguing the map relied too heavily on race, and federal courts agreed before the issue reached the Supreme Court.

The Court’s decision effectively limits how Section 2 can be used to force states into drawing districts based on racial composition.

This removes a major legal obstacle for Republican-led legislatures seeking to revisit congressional maps ahead of 2026.

Ongoing legal battles in Texas and Florida suggest that mid-cycle redistricting efforts are already underway, with courts allowing those maps to remain in place while challenges proceed.

Republicans are also expected to benefit from structural advantages in turnout and district geography, which, combined with new map flexibility, could further strengthen their position.

The ruling does not eliminate the Voting Rights Act but significantly narrows its application in redistricting cases, reducing the likelihood of successful legal challenges based on racial representation claims.

While most pollsters believe that Democrats will take back the House in November, there are some signs that a so-called “blue wave” is not a foregone conclusion.

Keep reading

DeSantis proposes new Congressional map for Fla., giving GOP 4 extra seats

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis has proposed an overhaul of the state’s congressional map, designed to net the Republican Party 4 additional seats in the U.S. House. This move is widely viewed by Democrats as a strategic “tit-for-tat” response to recent Democrat redistricting victories in states like Virginia and California.

Nonetheless, by establishing a projected 24–4 GOP advantage, the governor’s proposal reportedly seeks to ensure Florida’s congressional delegation accurately reflects the state’s massive shift in voter registration, which now sees Republicans leading Democrats by over 1.5 million voters.

This update would modernize the current split to better align with the state’s significant population growth and clear political mandate. Supporters have described the move as a necessary step to solidify Florida’s influence and provide a decisive Republican firewall in the House ahead of the 2026 midterms.

“Florida got shortchanged in the 2020 Census, and we’ve been fighting for fair representation ever since,” DeSantis (R-Fla.)told Fox News Digital. “Our population has since grown dramatically, and we have moved from a Democrat majority to a 1.5 million Republican advantage. Drawing maps based on race, which is reflected in our current congressional districts, is unconstitutional and should be prohibited.”

“Our new map for 2026 makes good on my promise to conduct mid-decade redistricting, and it more fairly represents the makeup of Florida today,” DeSantis added.

DeSantis’ latest congressional map proposal follows similar mid-decade redistricting efforts in states like Texas, Missouri, North Carolina, and Ohio, which are collectively expected to bolster the GOP’s seat count in the U.S. House.

While the move also coincides with a recent shift in Virginia that will highly likely favor Democrats, sources familiar with the governor’s thinking similarly argued that the Florida redraw is primarily driven by the state’s massive population growth and a significant shift in voter registration since the 2020 Census.

DeSantis has maintained that the update is necessary to ensure fair representation for Florida’s expanded electorate and to move toward a more “race-neutral” map, rather than acting as a direct retaliation for political developments in other states.

Keep reading

VA Gerrymander Language Is So Dishonest, Dems Refuse To Defend It In Court

Attorney General Jay Jones, D-Va., attempted to defend the commonwealth’s redistricting ballot initiative in an appeal to the state Supreme Court, while doing his best to dance around the amendment’s misleading language.

In a spring special election Democrat legislators presented Virginians with a constitutional referendum to gerrymander the state’s 11 U.S. House districts, shifting the balance of power in the delegation from six Democrats and five Republicans to 10 Democrats and one Republican. Democrats sold their proposal using the following language: “Should the Constitution of Virginia be amended to allow the General Assembly to temporarily adopt new congressional districts to restore fairness in the upcoming elections, while ensuring Virginia’s standard redistricting process resumes for all future redistricting after the 2030 census?” (Emphasis added.)

Virginia voters voted in favor of gerrymandering, based on that language.

A blanket ruling from the circuit court in Tazewell County nullified the vote and blocked the referendum from being officially certified the day after the redistricting measure passed. The court noted that the language Democrats used on the ballot was “flagrantly misleading” and did not “accurately describe the proposed amendment as it was passed by the General Assembly.”

Jones appealed to the state Supreme Court, but in his motion to stay, he made no effort to address the central language question on the ballot — the phrase “restore fairness in the upcoming election.”

“It asks voters whether to amend the Constitution to allow the General Assembly to ‘temporarily adopt new congressional districts,’ while ‘ensuring Virginia’s standard redistricting process resumes for all future redistricting after the 2030 census,’” Jones’ motion states.

As Republican state Del. Wren Williams noted, Jones “quotes the words before that line. He quotes the words after it. But he selectively skips the eight words that are the entire reason we are in court to begin with.”

“If the language were defensible, he would have defended it. A lawyer who believes in his ballot question quotes his ballot question. What is there to hide from those reading your Motion? Or may be reading the ballot question for the first time,” Williams added.

Jones only makes reference to the “fairness” language once, where he brushes it off as “rhetorical choices,” stating that “reasonable observers may disagree about whether the accompanying reference to ‘fairness’ reflects persuasive framing.” “Rhetorical choices,” however, are a means by which people understand language and ideas, and “rhetorical choices” are the very things that can make something misleading or clear.

Keep reading

Mississippi Governor Tate Reeves Calls Special Session For Redistricting

Mississippi’s Republican Governor Tate Reeves on Friday evening announced he is calling a special legislative session for redistricting once the US Supreme Court rules on voting rights (Louisiana v. Callais).

Governor Reeves said the legislature will convene 21 days after the Supreme Court issues a ruling.

President Trump’s Department of Justice, through Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division Harmeet Dhillon and Solicitor General John Sauer, told the US Supreme Court that race-based congressional districts must end once and for all.

The case, State of Louisiana v. Phillip Callais (and the related Press Robinson v. Phillip Callais), stems from Louisiana’s woke lawmakers caving to left-wing judges and creating a second “majority-minority” congressional district.

Here are the key takedowns:

  1. No More Race-First Districts Without Proof: Plaintiffs must prove their proposed majority-minority district is “superior” to the state’s map under race-neutral rules, including political goals. Otherwise, it’s just assuming racism where none exists.
  2. Decouple Race from Party: The brief slams how courts let Democrats hide behind “polarized voting” that’s really just partisan divides. “Plaintiffs must decouple party from race when determining whether majority and minority voters vote differently,” it states. No more using black voters’ loyalty to Democrats as an excuse for gerrymandering.
  3. Real Evidence of Discrimination Required: Echoing Shelby County v. Holder (which gutted outdated VRA provisions in 2013), the DOJ says current conditions don’t justify this nonsense. Voter turnout is sky-high, minorities are winning elections everywhere – including in Congress, where black representation is at record levels.

Full statement from Tate Reeves:

I don’t typically make news on a Friday afternoon, but today I am going to make an exception:

I’m calling a special session.

During the recently completed regular session, the Legislature discussed drawing new maps to comply with a decision from a federal judge from the Northern District of Mississippi – a decision that has been appealed to the 5th Circuit and the appeal has been heretofore stayed pending future U.S. Supreme Court decisions.

The entire world knows the Callais decision has not yet been handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court. It is a decision that could (and in my view should) forever change the way we draw electoral maps.

It is my belief and federal law requires that the Mississippi Legislature be given the first opportunity to draw these maps. And the fact is, they haven’t had a fair opportunity to do that because of the pending Callais decision.

For those reasons, I am using my constitutional authority to allow the Mississippi Legislature to use their constitutionally recognized right to draw these maps once the new rules of the game are known following Callais.

It is my sincere hope that, in deciding Callais, the U.S. Supreme Court will reaffirm the animating principle that all Americans are created equal and that when the government classifies its citizens on the basis of race, even as a perceived remedy to right a wrong, it engages in the offensive and demeaning assumption that Americans of a particular race, because of their race, think alike and share the same interests and preferences – a concept that is odious to a free people whose institutions are founded upon the doctrine of equality.

The special session will take place on the calendar day that falls 21 days after the U.S. Supreme Court issues the Callais decision.

Keep reading

Judge Rules Virginia Redistricting Referendum Unconstitutional

A Virginia judge ruled on April 22 that the state’s redistricting referendum approved by voters a day earlier was invalid, nullifying the election results.

Virginia Attorney General Jay Jones said he would immediately file an appeal.

“Virginia voters have spoken, and an activist judge should not have veto power over the People’s vote,” Jones said in an X post.

Tazewell Circuit Court Judge Jack Hurley entered an injunction blocking certification of the election.

Former Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli said the legal fight was just beginning after language used in the ballot question raised a lot of interest among the opposition.

The question voters faced was the following: “Should the Constitution of Virginia be amended to allow the General Assembly to temporarily adopt new congressional districts to restore fairness in the upcoming elections, while ensuring Virginia’s standard redistricting process resumes for all future redistricting after the 2030 census?”

Cuccinelli expects the case to move quickly through the appeals process.

“The ‘yes’ folks probably are going to look back at Tuesday and think that was the easy part because they have so badly violated several constitutional provisions,” Cuccinelli told “The Scott Jennings Show.”

The referendum faces three legal challenges in addition to the one decided on April 22.

“Here’s my prediction, the referendum gets tossed out in May,” Cuccinelli said in an X post.

Three of the lawsuits challenge the referendum on procedural grounds, arguing that Democratic Party lawmakers didn’t follow the law regarding timing requirements and legislative steps when passing the measure to place it on the ballot.

The fourth argument is about how the electoral districts were drawn and challenges the maps on contiguity requirements.

Tens of millions of dollars were spent to pass the redistricting referendum as Democrats across the nation continue their quest to redraw congressional seats in favor of taking back the U.S. House.

Keep reading