Connect with us

News

A Supreme Court ruling on voting rights could boost Republicans’ redistricting efforts

Published

on

A Supreme Court ruling on voting rights could boost Republicans’ redistricting efforts

Demonstrators holding signs in support of minority voting rights gather outside the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., on Wednesday.

Claire Harbage/NPR


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Claire Harbage/NPR

A major redistricting case returning to the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday could not only determine the fate of the federal Voting Rights Act, but also unlock a path for Republicans to pick up a slew of additional congressional seats.

If the high court overturns the act’s Section 2 — a provision that bans racial discrimination in voting — GOP-controlled states could redraw at least 19 more voting districts for the House of Representatives in favor of Republicans, according to a recent report by the voting rights advocacy groups Black Voters Matter Fund and Fair Fight Action.

And depending on when the court rules in the case, known as Louisiana v. Callais, some number of the seats could be redistricted prior to next year’s midterm election.

Advertisement

The analysis comes as President Trump continues to lead a GOP push for new maps in Texas, Missouri, North Carolina and other states that could help Republicans preserve their slim House majority after the 2026 election.

The GOP effort could be bolstered by a Supreme Court ruling that eliminates longstanding Section 2 protections against the dilution of the collective power of racial minority voters.

Many of the landmark law’s supporters fear such an outcome after the conservative-majority court didn’t rule last term on the Louisiana case, and instead scheduled a rare second round of oral arguments, which is expected to focus on the constitutionality of Section 2’s redistricting requirements.

A ruling gutting Section 2 could have a cascading effect on congressional maps in mostly Southern states where Republicans either control both legislative chambers and the governor’s office or have a veto-proof majority in the legislature — and where voting is racially polarized, with Black voters tending to vote Democratic and white voters tending to vote Republican.

If mapmakers in those states are no longer required under Section 2 to draw districts where racial minority voters have a realistic opportunity of electing their preferred candidate, Louisiana, Florida, Georgia, Missouri, North Carolina and Texas could end up with fewer Democratic representatives in Congress. Alabama, Mississippi, South Carolina and Tennessee could lose all of theirs, the report finds.

Advertisement

As much as 30% of the Congressional Black Caucus and 11% of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus could also be lost.

It all leads to a possibility of Republicans cementing one-party control of the House for at least a generation, says Cliff Albright, co-founder and executive director of Black Voters Matter Fund.

Demonstrators hold signs and wear shirts for Black Voters Matter Fund outside the Supreme Court on Wednesday.

Demonstrators hold signs and wear shirts for Black Voters Matter Fund outside the Supreme Court on Wednesday.

Claire Harbage/NPR


hide caption

Advertisement

toggle caption

Claire Harbage/NPR

“Part of the point that we’re trying to make with this report is that what happens in the South doesn’t just stay in the South,” Albright adds. “This racial gerrymandering has the ability to not just disempower, disenfranchise Black voters and to eliminate Black elected officials and Latino elected officials. What happens in these states impacts the entire country.”

How the Supreme Court overturning Section 2 could lead to a redistricting “free-for-all”

In the Louisiana case, a lower court ordered the state’s Republican-controlled legislature to draw a new congressional map after a group of Black voters sued under Section 2.

Advertisement

Section 2 “ensures all communities of color can still participate equally in the voting process and elect candidates who reflect their interests,” says Alanah Odoms, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Louisiana, whose attorneys are helping to represent those Black voters. “And if communities of color are not able to do that, we stand to lose what I think most of us believe is so fundamental to our democracy, which is equal participation, equal opportunity.”

The court-ordered map, which was in effect for the 2024 election, led to Democrats picking up a second seat in Louisiana.

A group of self-described “non-African American” voters, led by Phillip Callais, has argued, however, that the race-based redistricting the court ordered to get in line with Section 2 is unconstitutional. Just as the Supreme Court ruled against race-based affirmative action at colleges and universities in 2023, they argue, the court should put an end to race-based political mapmaking under Section 2.

In seeking a rehearing in the Louisiana case, the Supreme Court asked all sides in the case to consider whether the state’s “intentional creation of a second majority-minority congressional district violates the Fourteenth or Fifteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.”

In one of their latest briefs to the high court, Republican state officials in Louisiana now argue against using race “in any form” when redistricting.

Advertisement

And in a major shift from past administrations, the Justice Department under Trump agrees that Section 2’s protections against racial discrimination are no longer constitutional.

Two years ago, the Supreme Court rejected a similar argument by Alabama Republicans.

“The court could reaffirm the Voting Rights Act as it did in 2023 in Allen v. Milligan,” says Atiba Ellis, a professor and an associate dean at Case Western Reserve University’s law school. “But many observers — and I am one of them — have been concerned about the court becoming more and more cynical about race-conscious remedies to address longstanding civil rights wrongs. And this decision has the potential to be the tipping point where the court declares unconstitutional or heavily restricts the ability for Congress to create remedies that promote multiracial democracy.”

That kind of decision coming amid the ongoing mid-decade congressional redistricting war between Republicans and Democrats, Ellis adds, could set the stage for a true “free-for-all” — pointing also to the court’s 2019 ruling that partisan gerrymandering is not reviewable by federal courts.

“It is one thing for politicians on both sides of the aisle to use the power that they have to engage in unprecedented power grabs. But the most important check on those grabs has been the prevention of racial discrimination,” Ellis says about Section 2. “Absent the federal law that would prevent that discrimination, I think the consequences could be tremendous and could be felt for decades.”

Advertisement

The window of time to pass new congressional maps before the midterms is closing as state deadlines draw nearer. Louisiana’s top election official, Secretary of State Nancy Landry, has asked the Supreme Court to rule in this case by early January 2026 to avoid disrupting the state’s current schedule.

But the timing remains unclear for the Supreme Court, which usually releases decisions for major cases toward the end of its term in June.

The court has confirmed that it plans to discuss early next month if it will take up a North Dakota case about whether private individuals and groups — whose lawsuits have been the main way of enforcing Section 2 — can continue to sue. Republican state officials in Mississippi have also raised that issue in another redistricting case on direct appeal to the high court.

Edited by Benjamin Swasey

Advertisement

News

How Every Senator Voted on Passing the Bill to End the Shutdown

Published

on

How Every Senator Voted on Passing the Bill to End the Shutdown

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement

Measure passed with 60 “yes” votes to 40 “no” votes.
Vote Total Democrats Republicans Independents Bar chart of total votes
60 7 52 1
40 38 1 1

The Senate on Monday passed a bill to end the longest government shutdown in history after more than a month of stalemate. Seven Democrats and Senator Angus King, a Maine independent, joined almost every Republican in voting “yes.”

In voting for the bill, the Democrats broke with the rest of their party’s members, who have been insisting that any spending measure include the extension of expiring health insurance subsidies. The bill does not include any health care provisions, but Democrats did obtain some concessions, including the restoration of the jobs of federal workers who were laid off during the shutdown and guaranteed backpay for those who were furloughed.

Advertisement

The bill still needs to pass the House. Representatives are beginning to return to Washington after an extended recess, and a vote is not expected until Wednesday at the earliest.

How Every Senator Voted

Advertisement
Advertisement

Republicans

Member Answer

No

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Democrats

Advertisement

Member Answer

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

No

Advertisement

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

Advertisement

No

Continue Reading

News

Syria’s President Ahmed al-Sharaa visits White House for historic Trump meeting

Published

on

Syria’s President Ahmed al-Sharaa visits White House for historic Trump meeting

Ahmed al-Sharaa — who 20 years ago was thrown into a US detention centre in Iraq after he joined al-Qaeda militants fighting the Americans — on Monday became the first Syrian president to visit the White House since the country’s independence in 1946.

During his meeting with Donald Trump, Sharaa formally joined the 89-country coalition to defeat the militant group Isis, capping an extraordinary transformation for the erstwhile rebel leader who toppled dictator Bashar al-Assad nearly a year ago.

Trump said in the Oval Office on Monday: “He’s a very strong leader. He comes from a very tough place. And he’s a tough guy. I like him, I get along with him. We want to see Syria be successful along with the rest of the Middle East. So I have confidence that he’ll be able to do the job, absolutely.”

Since seizing power last December, Sharaa, 43, has worked hard to court friends and allies after decades of Assad family rule and 14 years of ruinous civil war left Syria internationally isolated.

His charm offensive has largely worked. Western and Arab states — spurred by Washington — have lifted most of the economic sanctions imposed in the Assad era and built closer ties with a state they had long shunned.

Advertisement

Sharaa met privately with the US president for nearly an hour and a half on Monday, after which he was expected to hold meetings with lawmakers in an effort, backed by the White House, to permanently repeal US sanctions.

Sharaa’s government has appealed to western sensibilities by touting free markets and foreign investment, political inclusion and a pluralistic society.

Top US lawmakers in both parties have broadly welcomed his message and have thrown their support behind a vote to repeal Washington’s most stringent sanctions, known as the Caesar Act.

But Sharaa’s government is dominated by Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, the Islamist insurgent group the Syrian leader once led, and critics say attempts at political inclusion have been superficial.

They also point to eruptions of sectarian violence in Syria over the past year, including clashes between government-backed forces and gunmen from the country’s Alawite and Druze religious minorities in which hundreds of civilians from both communities were killed. The government pledged to hold the perpetrators accountable, but many Syrians, particularly among minority groups, remain sceptical.

Advertisement

Trump in May waived most of the Assad-era sanctions on the country to give the nascent Syrian government “a chance”, after being impressed by the “tough” and “handsome” Syrian leader during a meeting in Saudi Arabia.

After Monday’s meeting, the Trump administration suspended the bulk of the Caesar Act sanctions for a further 180 days, replacing the president’s earlier waiver. The measures will still apply to “certain transactions” relating to Russia and Iran, the Treasury said.

The World Bank estimates it will take more than $200bn to rebuild the war-ravaged nation. Syria’s economic recovery has stalled amid the lingering sanctions, with foreign companies wary of investing until they are fully repealed.

Syrian companies, in turn, have found it difficult to raise funds or import goods because of concerns about complying with sanctions.

The Israeli government and its allies in Washington have warned the White House against placing its trust in Sharaa and have urged Congress not to support a full repeal.

Advertisement

Sharaa “has deep roots in the global jihad”, a pro-Israel advocacy group, the Jewish Institute for National Security of America, warned in a recent report, which called on Congress to slow its “rush to repeal the Caesar Act permanently”.

Sharaa on Sunday met Republican congressman Brian Mast, chair of the House foreign affairs committee and a key Republican holdout on lifting sanctions.

Mast, who lost both of his legs to an improvised bomb while serving as a soldier in Afghanistan, on Monday said he and Sharaa had “a long and serious conversation about how to build a future for the people of Syria free of war, Isis and extremism”.

“He and I are two former soldiers and two former enemies,” Mast said. He added Sharaa told him of his desire to “liberate from the past and have a noble pursuit for his people and his country and to be a great ally to the United States of America”.

Urged on by Washington, the UN Security Council has lifted terror-related sanctions on Sharaa and his interior minister and former al-Qaeda member Anas Khattab. The UK and US followed suit.

Advertisement

Talks between Sharaa and Trump on Monday were expected to focus on security, including Israel, Isis and Kurdish-led forces.

Syria’s formal entry into the global anti-Isis coalition helps to seal Sharaa’s partnership with Washington and strengthens his anti-jihadi credentials with sceptics. While HTS was briefly allied with Isis in the fight to oust Assad, it has fought the group since they parted ways.

Despite no longer having territorial control, Isis cells continue to carry out attacks in Syria. Sharaa’s security forces have conducted raids on the group in recent weeks.

For years, Washington’s main ally in fighting Isis has been the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces, which control the country’s north-east. Talks to merge the SDF and Damascus’s security forces have stalled, despite pressure from Washington to come to a resolution.

The US military has increased its co-operation with Damascus on Isis in recent months and is said to be considering an expansion of its military presence in Syria by sending troops to an air base in the Syrian capital. This would be a boost to Sharaa’s fledgling presidency, analysts said.

Advertisement

Syrian analyst Malik al-Abdeh said: “It’s great for Sharaa, in that he will be backed up by a major power, and great for the US in terms of its footprint in the region and having decisive influence over Damascus. It’s a win-win.”

Moscow, a financial and military backer for Assad, has sought to smooth things over with Sharaa’s government over the past year in order to keep its strategically important air base and naval port in the country. Last month, Sharaa met Russian leader Vladimir Putin in Moscow in what was billed as a “reset” in relations.

Continue Reading

News

Families accuse Camp Mystic of ignoring risks in Texas lawsuit over flood deaths

Published

on

Families accuse Camp Mystic of ignoring risks in Texas lawsuit over flood deaths

An officer prays with a family as they pick up items at Camp Mystic in Hunt, Texas, on July 9.

Ashley Landis/AP


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Ashley Landis/AP

The operators of Camp Mystic in Texas, where 25 girls and two teenage counselors died in catastrophic flooding on July 4, failed to take necessary steps to protect the campers as life-threatening floodwaters approached, families of the victims allege in a lawsuit.

The lawsuit, filed Monday in state court in Austin, seeks more than $1 million in damages but does not specify an exact amount. It was filed as Camp Mystic has drawn renewed outrage from several victims’ families over plans to reopen the 100-year-old camp next summer.

Among the claims in the lawsuit is that a groundskeeper was directed to spend more than an hour evacuating equipment while girls and counselors in cabins closest to the Guadalupe River were ordered to remain there, even as floodwaters overwhelmed the property.

Advertisement

The lawsuit was filed by the families of five campers and the two counselors who died.

“These young girls died because a for-profit camp put profit over safety,” the lawsuit said. “The camp chose to house young girls in cabins sitting in flood-prone areas, despite the risk, to avoid the cost of relocating the cabins.”

The suit also alleges the operators of the camp chose not to make plans to safely evacuate campers, despite state rules requiring such plans, and instead ordered campers and counselors to remain in their cabins as a matter of policy.

A broken heart sign is displayed near Camp Mystic on July 8 after a flash flood swept through the area in Hunt, Texas.

A broken heart sign is displayed near Camp Mystic on July 8 after a flash flood swept through the area in Hunt, Texas.

Eli Hartman/AP


hide caption

Advertisement

toggle caption

Eli Hartman/AP

Defendants named in the lawsuit include Camp Mystic, affiliated entities and its owners, including the estate of camp owner Richard Eastland, who also died in the flooding, and his family members.

Advertisement

A separate lawsuit with similar allegations was filed Monday by the family of Eloise Peck, another Camp Mystic camper who died in the flood. Both lawsuits were filed in Travis County.

Telephone and email messages left Monday with an attorney for Camp Mystic seeking comment on the lawsuit were not immediately returned.

The campers and counselors were killed when the fast-rising floodwaters roared through a low-lying area of the summer camp before dawn on the Fourth of July. All told, the destructive flooding killed at least 136 people, raising questions about how things went so terribly wrong.

County leaders were asleep or out of town. The head of Camp Mystic had been tracking the weather beforehand, but it’s now unclear whether he saw an urgent warning from the National Weather Service that had triggered an emergency alert to phones in the area, a spokesperson for the camp’s operators said in the immediate aftermath.

The camp, established in 1926, did not evacuate and was hit hard when the river rose from 14 feet (4.2 meters) to 29.5 feet (9 meters) within 60 minutes.

Advertisement

Ryan DeWitt, whose daughter Molly DeWitt was one of the campers killed in the flooding, said in a statement that the lawsuit is a step toward helping the family find peace.

“We trust that through this process, light will be shed on what happened, and our hope is that justice will pave the way for prevention and much-needed safety reform,” DeWitt said.

The deaths of the campers and counselors, and the gut-wrenching testimony from their parents to Texas lawmakers, led to a series of new laws designed to prevent similar tragedies in the future.

Continue Reading

Trending