Connect with us

News

Democratic Candidates and Voters Challenge Tennessee’s New Map

Published

on

Democratic Candidates and Voters Challenge Tennessee’s New Map

A coalition of voters and Democratic candidates sued Tennessee officials in federal court late Thursday over its new congressional map, arguing that it was unconstitutional to implement new district lines this close to the state’s August primary.

It was the latest twist in the aftermath of a Supreme Court ruling last week on the Voting Rights Act that declared congressional districts in Louisiana to be an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. The ruling set off a frenetic scramble in Tennessee and several other Republican-led states to redraw their districts for partisan advantage on the assumption that they are no longer required to preserve Black majority districts.

The Republican supermajority in the Tennessee General Assembly muscled through a new congressional map on Thursday that carves up the majority-Black city of Memphis, home to the state’s lone Democratic-held seat.

The lawsuit and its outcome took on heightened stakes after the Virginia Supreme Court on Friday struck down a voter-approved map that created four Democratic-leaning districts in the state. If Tennessee’s map holds — and if other Southern states approve new maps that dilute majority-Black seats held by Democrats — Republicans will have established a structural advantage across multiple districts ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.

“Changing the rules midstream will create chaos for voters and throw communities into upheaval,” Rachel Campbell, the chairwoman of the Tennessee Democratic Party, which is also part of the lawsuit, said in a statement. “We will fight these racially gerrymandered maps tooth and nail because the future of democracy in Tennessee, across the South, and throughout this nation depends on it.”

Advertisement

The lawsuit centers on the constitutional right to vote under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, and it argues that both the voters’ and candidates’ constitutional rights were harmed by changes to the congressional map that undermined months of campaigning and voter education based on the old map.

The lawsuit also references a legal doctrine known as the Purcell principle. That principle, stemming from a contested 2006 Supreme Court ruling in Purcell v. Gonzalez, discourages changes to voting rules and procedures close to elections.

The lawsuit was filed overnight by a cluster of voters, as well as four Democratic candidates: Representative Steve Cohen of Memphis, whose district was divided up among three new Republican-leaning districts; State Representative Justin J. Pearson, who had challenged Mr. Cohen for the Memphis seat; Mayor Chaz Molder of Columbia, a lead challenger to Representative Andy Ogles in what was once a solely Middle Tennessee seat; and Chaney Mosely, a candidate for a Nashville-area seat.

A second lawsuit is already underway in state court, filed Thursday afternoon by the NAACP Tennessee State Conference.

Spokeswomen for Gov. Bill Lee, a Republican, and Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti did not immediately respond to requests for comment. The lawsuit also names Tre Hargett, the secretary of state, and Mark Goins, the Tennessee coordinator of elections, in their official positions. A spokeswoman for the secretary of state’s office declined to comment, citing the ongoing litigation.

Advertisement

In their brief filed before the district court for the Middle District of Tennessee, the candidates and voters argue that the sudden shift of the congressional districts just months before the primary “will wreak chaos on the electorate, will cause significant voter confusion” and will affect election officials’ ability to administer the election. They asked the court to stop the implementation of the map before the 2026 election.

Tennessee was the first state to draft and approve a map after the Supreme Court’s ruling raised the bar for challenging district lines under the Voting Rights Act. Within a week, Mr. Lee summoned lawmakers to Nashville for a special session, and Republican leaders had drawn and approved a new map that gives the party an advantage toward electing an entirely Republican congressional delegation.

The map carved up the Ninth Congressional District, where two-thirds of the voting-age population is Black, into thirds, most likely eliminating the state’s lone Democrat-leaning district. It also moved district lines around the Nashville area in an apparent bid to shore up Mr. Ogles.

Candidates now have until noon on May 15 to file papers with the secretary of state’s office. Those who already qualified may remain in the new district with the same number. At least one Republican, State Senator Brent Taylor, has already announced his candidacy for the new Ninth Congressional District.

All four congressional candidates on the suit warned that they would have to “to expend more resources identifying, associating with, and campaigning to voters who live in the newly-enacted district.”

Advertisement

They also pointed to litigation filed in February 2022 after a new map of State House and State Senate districts that year was challenged, prompting a push to delay the qualifying date from April to May. At the time, Tennessee officials argued against moving the qualifying date. The State Supreme Court agreed.

Seamus Hughes and Katherine Chui contributed research.

News

Federal judge bars Trump from implementing proof of citizenship requirement to vote

Published

on

Federal judge bars Trump from implementing proof of citizenship requirement to vote

A federal judge on Wednesday permanently barred President Donald Trump’s administration from implementing most of his first executive order on elections, part of which sought to require people to show documentary proof of citizenship when they register to vote.

The ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Denise Casper in Boston effectively converts a preliminary injunction she issued a year ago, in which she temporarily blocked many of Trump’s efforts to overhaul elections, into a permanent ban.

Casper rejected the Republican administration’s argument that the lawsuit to block the changes brought by Democratic state attorneys general was premature because the rules had yet to be put in place. Instead, she agreed that the Constitution gives states and Congress the authority to regulate elections, and that Trump’s requirements violated the separation of powers.

The Constitution “does not grant the President any specific powers over elections,” wrote Casper.

Among other proposed changes, Trump’s order would have required people to provide documentary proof of citizenship when registering to vote, prevented mail ballots from being counted if they arrive after Election Day, even if they were postmarked by then, and punished states that failed to comply by withholding certain federal money.

Advertisement

In a statement, New York Attorney General Letitia James said she was grateful the court had blocked Trump’s “unconstitutional attempt to seize control of our elections” and would continue to defend voting rights in this year’s midterm elections.

“Generations of Americans fought tirelessly for the right to vote, and we honor their legacy by protecting that right against anyone who tries to undermine it,” said James, a Democrat.

A voter casts a ballot during New York’s primary election on Tuesday, June 23, 2026, in New York. (AP Photo/Ryan Murphy)

Advertisement

Advertisement

California Attorney General Rob Bonta, whose state was the lead plaintiff in the case, said the ruling reaffirmed the constitutional principle that it s up to the states and Congress to set election rules.

“While we are proud of this result, we are clear-eyed that President Trump’s attacks on voting rights and our elections show no signs of slowing down,” Bonta, a Democrat, said in a statement. “So let me be clear: we will keep fighting back every step of the way.”

Requests for comment sent to the White House and he U.S. Department of Justice were not immediately returned.

The ruling was the latest in a series against the elections executive order Trump signed just months after taking office for his second term. The Republican president has since signed another executive order on elections that seeks to create a national voter list and limit mail balloting. That directive also faces multiple legal challenges.

Advertisement

Last fall, a federal judge in Washington, D.C., overseeing a separate challenge to the first election executive order by civil rights and Democratic Party-aligned groups blocked the government from taking steps to include the proof-of-citizenship requirement on the federal voter registration form. That judge later barred Trump’s defense secretary from requiring documentary proof of citizenship when military personnel register to vote or request ballots.

In an apparent nod to the difficulty of implementing a proof-of-citizen requirement by executive order, Trump is pushing legislation in the Republican-controlled Congress to create such a mandate. The SAVE America Act has passed the House but has stalled in the Senate, leading Trump to advocate for eliminating the filibuster that is blocking the legislation.

On Wednesday, he abruptly canceled the expected signing of a bipartisan housing bill, saying he would not sign legislation until Congress passes his proof of citizenship requirement for voting.

The president and many of his Republican allies have been promoting the narrative that voting by noncitizens is a major problem, when in fact it’s quite rare. The federal voter registration form already requires people to attest that they are U.S. citizens. Violating that is punishable as a felony that can lead to prison or deportation.

In another major voting case, the U.S. Supreme Court is due to issue an opinion soon on whether mail ballots must arrive by Election Day. That could immediately change the rules in 14 states that allow grace periods ranging from days to weeks if the ballots are postmarked by Election Day.

Advertisement

Casper, who was nominated by Democratic President Barack Obama, is the chief judge for the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

Continue Reading

News

Video: Mamdani Allies Sweep New York Primaries

Published

on

Video: Mamdani Allies Sweep New York Primaries

new video loaded: Mamdani Allies Sweep New York Primaries

transcript

transcript

Mamdani Allies Sweep New York Primaries

Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s progressive coalition had a big night on Tuesday. Brad Lander, Darializa Avila Chevalier and Claire Valdez won their Democratic House primaries.

“I see a New York that we can all afford. I see a New York that truly invests in its babies, not bombs.” Reporter: “What’s the first thing you’re looking forward to doing in Congress?” “Well, tomorrow — thank you — I mean, tomorrow morning, you know, I’m going to be back at 26 Federal Plaza doing court watching, and we want to carry that into Congress as well.”

Advertisement
Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s progressive coalition had a big night on Tuesday. Brad Lander, Darializa Avila Chevalier and Claire Valdez won their Democratic House primaries.

By Julie Yoon

June 24, 2026

Continue Reading

News

Appeals court allows Trump administration expanded use of speedy deportations

Published

on

Appeals court allows Trump administration expanded use of speedy deportations

A massive 826,780-square-foot warehouse sits illuminated Feb. 12, 2026, in the El Paso suburb of Socorro, Texas, that was recently purchased by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security for $122.8 million.

Morgan Lee/AP


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Morgan Lee/AP

A federal appeals court on Tuesday allowed the Trump administration to resume carrying out speedy deportations of undocumented migrants throughout the United States, not just near the border.

A divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit threw out a lower court decision that temporarily blocked President Donald Trump’s expanded use of expedited removal. The ruling was a big victory for the Republican administration, which views the expansion of so-called expedited removal as a key tool for carrying out its mass deportation policy.

Expedited removal — quick deportation without a chance to appear before a judge — has previously been applied to migrants arriving by sea or caught at or near the border shortly after crossing.

Advertisement

In January, Trump expanded its use to undocumented migrants all over the United States. Immigration agents began whisking migrants away from courthouses where they had gone for immigration proceedings and then removing them from the country within days.

“The Trump administration’s push for fast-track deportations will subject people to an unfair and error-prone system,” Anand Balakrishnan, senior staff attorney with the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project, said in a statement.

Balakrishnan represented plaintiffs in arguments before the appellate panel and said its ruling “undermines the fundamental principle that people receive due process when the government seeks to deport them.”

DC Circuit Judge Justin R. Walker, one of the judges on the panel, said the plaintiffs had not shown the expanded use of expedited removal violated due process rights. Immigrants received notice of removal proceedings and were given a chance to respond, he wrote in his opinion.

Walker and the second judge in the majority, Neomi Rao, were appointed by Trump. The third judge on the panel was appointed by President Barack Obama, a Democrat.

Advertisement

Walker said there was no requirement that the administration inform immigrants that they can avoid expedited removal if they can show they have been in the United States for more than two years.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending