Tag: race

Justice Dept says it will enforce SCOTUS ruling in every state with racially gerrymandered districts

nited States Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Harmeet Dhillon said Thursday that the Justice Department will enforce the Supreme Court’s decision on gerrymandering districts in every state that has such a district.

The Supreme Court struck down two congressional maps in Louisiana Wednesday, ruling the state was unconstitutionally racially gerrymandering when it added a second majority black district. Louisiana redrew the maps in 2024 after a lower court ruled previous maps likely violated the Voting Rights Act because it did not include the second majority black district.

Missouri GOP Sen. Eric Schmitt asked the Justice Department earlier Thursday to enforce the Supreme Court ruling nationwide, noting it had the power to do so. 

“Senator — we are ON IT!” Dhillon replied on X. “The [Justice Department] under [Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche] continues to prioritize equal protection of the laws for ALL Americans, be it in employment, housing, education — and voting.” 

The commitment comes as 45 redistricting disputes remain unresolved in federal and state courts, casting a cloud of legal uncertainty over the fight for control of the U.S. House of Representatives this November. 

Keep reading

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

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

Liberal Insanity: Michigan Town Spends $18,000 in Taxpayer Cash to Rip Out Over 600 ‘Racist’ Neighborhood Watch Signs, Mayor Calls Them ‘Expressions of Exclusion’

The liberal city of Ann Arbor, Michigan, has spent $18,000 in taxpayer funds to remove more than 600 “Neighborhood Watch” signs after city officials declared the crime prevention signs “expressions of exclusion” that allegedly promote racial profiling and make people of color feel “unwelcome.”

The signs were yanked from front yards and public spaces by city crews over the past few weeks, with the final one removed last week.

Ann Arbor Mayor Christopher Taylor personally helped remove the last sign alongside two city council members.

In a video statement posted to Instagram to virtue signal, Taylor declared, “Frankly, neighborhood watch signs are expressions of exclusion, and they’re inconsistent with our values. Ann Arbor is a welcoming community. We don’t want to push people away. We want to welcome folks in.”

Council Member Cynthia Harrison, who is Black, strongly supported the removal.

In the announcement video, Harrison stated, “There are people that look like me, and those from my community that have been questioned, quite frankly, in their own neighborhood by others, you know, wondering what they’re doing there.”

“This is just representative of our values and how we want people to feel in Ann Arbor,” Harrison continued. “We do welcome everyone to the city of Ann Arbor, but most importantly, we want everyone to feel welcome, and just the removal of these signs is a huge step in that direction.”

The city council voted 10-0 in December to direct staff to remove every single Neighborhood Watch sign by July 15.

Officials unanimously approved the $18,000 expenditure earlier this year, drawing the money from the city’s general cash reserves rather than from the police or street maintenance budgets.

Ann Arbor officials claim the Neighborhood Watch program, launched nationwide in the 1970s amid rising crime concerns, has been “defunct” and inactive for decades.

The officials also cited research showing the signs do not actually reduce crime and instead “reinforce biased surveillance practices” and create distrust toward people of color.

Keep reading

Rep. Jasmine Crockett Declares ‘I Am One of the 535 Most Powerful People’ in America While Whining About ‘Disrespect’ Toward Black Women, Demands Regular Americans Need to Know Their Place

Texas Democrat Rep. Jasmine Crockett unleashed an unhinged and egotistical rant on national television Tuesday, insisting she is one of the “535 most powerful people in this country” and complaining that everyday Americans are showing her “disrespect” by failing to treat her as an untouchable elite.

Crockett made the comments during an appearance on “The Sherri Show,” hosted by Sherri Shepherd, while discussing criticism of Black women in Congress.

“Some people are just like, ‘Oh, but you’re a congresswoman.’ I’m a Black woman first,” Crockett declared.

The soon-to-be former politician added, “So, the level of disrespect that is continuously lobbed against us as Black women, for me, I’m like, wait a minute now. I am one of the 535 most powerful people in this country!”

Crockett went on to demand that everyday Americans know their place beneath her.

“And for some reason you think we’re on the same level, but you’re going to disrespect me? Like, it’s not going to happen!” Crockett asserted.

The interview has drawn swift backlash and criticism on social media, with commenters explaining that members of Congress are public servants elected by the American people, not royalty above reproach.

Crockett’s latest outburst comes at a particularly awkward time, because in March, she was decisively defeated in the Democrat primary for U.S. Senate in Texas by state Rep. James Talarico.

The stunning loss ended her bid to move up from the House, leaving her as a lame-duck congresswoman heading into the final months of her term.

Crockett, a former public defender and civil rights attorney, first won election to Congress in a 2023 special election for Texas’s 30th District following the retirement of longtime Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson.

The loudmouth representative quickly gained national attention for her combative style in House hearings, most notably her viral exchanges with then-Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene and other Republicans during Judiciary Committee proceedings.

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

Blue Cities Dole Out Homeless Services Based on Race and Sexual Identity

The homelessness crisis in Multnomah County, Oregon, home to deep-blue Portland, is among the worst in the country. The county allocates public housing resources using a point-based system that gives preferential treatment to minorities, non-native English speakers, and those who are “LGBTQIA2S+,” the Free Beacon‘s Aaron Sibarium reports.

“Rolled out in October 2024, the Multnomah Services and Screening Tool awards up to 5 points to non-white, non-straight applicants who speak English as a second language—more than the 4 points it would award a domestic violence survivor with a six-year-old child who has been homeless for over a year,” Sibarium writes. “The rubric, obtained by the Washington Free Beacon through a public records request, is ‘designed to prioritize … BIPOC households, LGBTQIA2S+, [and] people with disabilities,’ according to a Frequently Asked Questions pamphlet. It awards 1 point for ‘interest in LGBTQ services,’ 2 points for ‘English as a second language,’ and another 2 points for ‘interest in culturally specific services,’ a catch-all term for Portland’s race-based housing program.”

The system, which American Civil Rights Project director Dan Morenoff described as “very unconstitutional,” might sound like a veritable kick-me sign for the Trump administration as it seeks to defund housing programs that use racial preferences. “But that has not stopped housing authorities in a host of Democratic jurisdictions from rolling out their own race-based systems—even in counties, like Multnomah, where the majority of homeless people are white.” The Free Beacon identified five states, including Maryland, Minnesota, and Illinois, as well as several cities, that have incorporated racial preferences into their housing programs.

“In at least two states, Maryland and Minnesota, race appears to be the single largest factor in allocating rent relief,” writes Sibarium. “At a time when the Trump administration has promised to protect ‘the civil rights of all Americans,’ the programs are a stark indication that some people, including the poorest and most vulnerable, are falling through the cracks.”

Keep reading

Supreme Court Issues Landmark Ruling on Voting Rights Act: 4 Things to Know

The U.S. Supreme Court in a landmark decision on April 29 reinterpreted a provision of the Voting Rights Act and struck down a majority-black congressional district in Louisiana, opening the door for more redistricting across the United States.

In a 6–3 ruling, the high court found that the Louisiana district represented by Rep. Cleo Fields (D-La.) relied on race when the congressional map was drawn up.

Ruling Impacts Key Voting Rights Act Section

The ruling was authored by Justice Samuel Alito and joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett.

Alito wrote that “allowing race to play any part in government decisionmaking represents a departure from the constitutional rule that applies in almost every other context.”

He said Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act is effectively limited to instances of intentional discrimination, a very high standard.

“Only when understood this way does (Section 2) of the Voting Rights Act properly fit within Congress’s 15th Amendment enforcement power,” Alito wrote.

The 15th Amendment, a Reconstruction-era amendment of the Constitution that was ratified in 1870 following the end of the Civil War, allows Congress to pass laws ensuring that the right to vote cannot be denied “on ​account of race, color or previous condition of servitude.”

Interpreting Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which was signed into law in 1965, to “outlaw a map solely because it fails to provide a sufficient number of majority-minority districts would create a right that the amendment does not protect,” Alito argued, referring to the 15th Amendment.

Louisiana Map ‘Unconstitutional’

With the decision, the high court blocked an electoral map in Louisiana that would have given the state a second majority-black congressional district.

The Supreme Court’s ruling was issued amid a battle unfolding between Republican-led and Democratic-led states ​around the country involving the redrawing of electoral maps to change the composition of House of Representatives districts ahead of the November elections.

“That map is an unconstitutional gerrymander,” Alito wrote for the majority, adding that the Voting Rights Act doesn’t “require Louisiana to create an additional majority-minority district” and ruling that there is “no compelling interest” that justified Louisiana using race to create Fields’ district.

The U.S. Constitution, he added, “almost never permits a State to discriminate on the basis of race, and such discrimination triggers strict scrutiny.”

The decision was issued as other states have moved to implement new congressional districts ahead of the November 2026 midterm elections.

Florida legislators were debating a proposed redrawing of the state’s congressional lines, which was submitted this month by Gov. Ron DeSantis and was intended to give Republicans a chance to pick up as many as four seats in the House of Representatives.

Keep reading