Former Vice President Kamala Harris accused President Donald Trump and Republicans of trying to “rig the 2026 elections” after the Virginia Supreme Court invalidated a voter-approved redistricting referendum, a ruling she said would “give a boost” to that effort.

“Today, the Virginia Supreme Court ignored the will of the people and overturned those democratically chosen maps,” Harris wrote on X on May 8.

“This ruling gives a boost to Donald Trump’s effort to rig the 2026 elections and the Republicans’ long game to attack voting rights,” she added.

The ruling marked a significant victory for Republicans ahead of the 2026 midterms and escalated an already intensifying national battle over redistricting and control of Congress.

VIRGINIA SUPREME COURT RULES ON NEW CONGRESSIONAL MAP

“We hold that the legislative process employed to advance this proposal violated Article XII, Section 1 of the Constitution of Virginia,” the state’s high court said in its decision. “This constitutional violation incurably taints the resulting referendum vote and nullifies its legal efficacy.”

The measure, which passed by a narrow 51% to 49% margin, would have temporarily shifted redistricting authority from Virginia’s nonpartisan commission to the Democrat-controlled legislature through 2030 and was expected to yield a 10-1 Democratic advantage in the state’s congressional delegation.

Trump praised the decision in a post on Truth Social, calling it a “Huge win for the Republican Party, and America, in Virginia.”

‘JUSTICE’: CELEBRATION, MOCKERY ERUPT AFTER SPANBERGER ‘GERRYMANDER’ IS BLOWN UP IN BLOCKBUSTER DECISION

“The Virginia Supreme Court has just struck down the Democrats’ horrible gerrymander,” he wrote.

Democrats sharply criticized the ruling. Democratic National Committee Chair Ken Martin said “a group of unelected judges on the Virginia Supreme Court chose to put partisan politics over the will of the people.”

Virginia Attorney General Jay Jones also pushed back, saying the decision “silences the voices of the millions of Virginians who cast their ballots” and that his office is evaluating “every legal pathway forward.”

ERIC HOLDER ACCUSES GOP OF ‘STEALING SEATS’ WHILE DEFENDING ‘FAIR’ DEMOCRATIC REDISTRICTING PUSH

Harris echoed that sentiment in her post, writing, “We are rightfully outraged, but we will not give up. We must continue our fight to restore the power of the people.”

Her comments come as she has stepped up attacks on Trump in recent appearances while facing renewed questions about her political future.

At a recent event in Las Vegas, Harris said, “For far too many people in our country, the American dream, is not real. And in fact, for many people in their lived experience, it’s what they would consider an American myth.”

KAMALA HARRIS’ TRAVELS AND COMMENTS CLEARLY POINT TO 2028

She also declined to downplay Trump, saying, “I’m not going to dismiss him as being an idiot. He’s dangerous.”

At the same time, top Democrats have been reluctant to weigh in on whether Harris should lead the party in 2028.

“I have no idea,” Rep. Jim Clyburn, D-S.C., told Fox News Digital when asked about her future.

“I have no idea who’s running, and we’ll focus on 2028 after 2026,” Rep. Dan Goldman, D-N.Y., said.

Rep. John Larson, D-Conn., said the decision ultimately rests with Harris but added he believes Democrats should have “a wide-open Democratic primary.”

The Virginia ruling is the latest flashpoint in a broader redistricting fight as both parties position themselves ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.

Harris, for her part, signaled she intends to remain engaged.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

“I firmly and strongly believe that when you feel powerless, you are powerless,” Harris said. “And when you feel powerful, you are powerful. And we are powerful and we are powerful. And so let’s just show ourselves, each other, our power around the midterms and every day.”

Fox News Digital’s Breanne Deppisch, Leo Briceno, Olivia Palombo, and Paul Steinhauser contributed to this reporting.

The last time the Supreme Court threatened to end access to the country’s most popular abortion method, California’s network of online providers and their pharmaceutical suppliers scrambled to respond.

Now, with the fate of the cocktail used in roughly two-thirds of U.S. terminations once again in the balance, they’re not even breaking a sweat.

Dr. Michele Gomez, co-founder of the MYA Network, a consortium of virtual reproductive healthcare providers, said the supply chain is “ready to switch in a day” to an alternative drug combination.

“It’s not going away and it’s not going to slow down,” Gomez said.

On May 1, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled to block the drug mifepristone from being prescribed virtually and shipped through the mail, making such deliveries illegal across the country. On Monday, the Supreme Court stayed that decision, allowing prescriptions to resume until the court issues an emergency ruling next week.

Mifepristone is the first half of a two-drug protocol for medication abortion, which made up 63% of all legal abortions in the U.S. in 2023.

Between a quarter and a third of those abortion drugs are now prescribed by healthcare providers over the internet and delivered by mail — a path Louisiana and other ban states are fighting to bar.

“Abortion access has gone up with all the telehealth providers,” Gomez said. “We uncovered an unmet need.”

But the cocktail’s second ingredient, misoprostol, can be used to produce abortion on its own — a method that’s often more painful and slightly less effective.

It would be easy for suppliers to switch to a misoprostol-only protocol — and much harder for courts to block it, experts said.

“We heard about this on Friday and organizations that mail pills were mailing misoprostol on Saturday,” Gomez said. “They already knew what to do.”

After the Supreme Court overturned Roe vs. Wade in 2022, California became one of the first states to enshrine abortion rights for residents in its Constitution and legislate protection for clinicians who prescribe abortion pills to women in states with bans.

Last fall, legislators in Sacramento expanded those protections by allowing pills to be mailed without either the doctor or the patient’s name attached.

But cases like the one being decided next week could still sharply limit abortion rights even in states with extensive legal protections, experts warned.

“Even though California has built a fortress around its own constitutional protections of reproductive freedom, those [protections] become vulnerable to the whims of antiabortion states if the Supreme Court gives those states their imprimatur,” said Michele Goodwin, professor at Georgetown Law and an expert on reproductive justice.

Legal experts are split over how the justices will decide the medication’s mail-order fate.

“This is a case where law clearly won’t matter,” said Eric J. Segall, a law professor at Georgia State University and an expert on the Supreme Court.

“In a very important midterm election year, I think there’s at least two Republicans on the court who will decide that upholding the 5th Circuit would really hurt the Republicans at the polls,” he said. “If women can’t get this by mail in California or other blue states where abortion is legal, it’s going to have devastating consequences, and I think the court knows that.”

But he and others believe it’s no longer a matter of if — but when and how — the drugs are restricted, including in California.

“This is curating a backdrop for a legal showdown that may surely come,” Goodwin said.

The court’s most conservative justices could find grounds to act in the long-forgotten Comstock Act of 1873. The brainchild of America’s zealously anti-porn postmaster Anthony Comstock, the law not only banned the mailing of the “Birth of Venus” and “Lady Chatterley’s Lover,” but also condoms, diaphragms and any drug, tool or text that could be used to produce an abortion.

Though it hasn’t been enforced since the 1970s, the antiabortion provision of the law remains on the books, experts said.

“The next move is with the Comstock Act, which Justices Alito and Thomas have already been hinting at,” Goodwin said. “In that case, it’s like playing Monopoly — we could skip mifepristone and go straight to contraception. The goal is to make sure none of that gets to be in the mail.”

That move would upend how Americans get both abortions and birth control, and put an unassuming L.A. County pharmacy squarely in the government’s crosshairs.

Although doctors in nearly two dozen states can safely prescribe medication abortion to women anywhere in the U.S., only a handful of specialty pharmacies actually fill those mail orders, Gomez explained. Among the largest is Honeybee in Culver City, which did not reply to requests for comment.

Even if the justices don’t reach for Comstock, a decision in Louisiana’s favor next week could create a two-tiered system of abortion across California and other blue states, experts said.

“The people this case hurts the most are the poor and the rural,” said Segall, the Supreme Court expert.

National data show that abortion patients are disproportionately poor. Most are also already mothers. Losing mail access to mifepristone would leave many with the more painful, less effective option while those with the time and means to reach a clinic continue to get the gold standard of care.

“There are fundamental questions of citizenship at the heart of this,” said Goodwin, the constitutional scholar. “Under the 14th Amendment, women are supposed to have equality, citizenship, liberty. It’s as though the Supreme Court has taken a black marker and pressed it against all of those words.”

For Gomez and other providers, that’s tomorrow’s problem.

“The lawyers and the politicians are just going to do their thing,” the doctor said. “The healthcare providers are just trying to get medications to people who need them.”