A three-judge district court panel has ruled that Alabama cannot eliminate a second Black-opportunity congressional seat, upholding its previous order that the state’s preferred map intentionally discriminated based on race. The court rejected Alabama’s attempt to retroactively justify its discriminatory map, citing that the state had refused to comply with prior rulings requiring the creation of a second Black-opportunity district. Consequently, Alabama must continue to use the court-ordered, race-blind map that includes two Black-opportunity districts for the 2026 elections. This decision is significant as other Southern states have moved to eliminate Black-majority districts following a recent Supreme Court ruling, and Alabama has vowed to appeal the ruling.
Read More
The article discusses a novel legal strategy emerging in Hawaii aimed at curbing corporate influence in elections by redefining corporate powers granted by the state, rather than directly challenging Citizens United on First Amendment grounds. This approach argues that state charters, which create corporations, precede any constitutional rights, allowing states to limit corporate political spending. While met with skepticism from some legal experts who believe it will ultimately be struck down by courts, the legislation has garnered significant bipartisan support in Hawaii and is being explored in other states as a potential avenue to address concerns about the influence of “dark money” in politics. The outcome in Hawaii, should the governor sign the bill, is expected to lead to legal battles that could ultimately reach the Supreme Court, reigniting the debate over corporate speech rights.
Read More
Florida is once again at the center of a political firestorm, as voters have launched a lawsuit challenging the state’s newly drawn congressional map, with critics labeling it “one of the most extreme gerrymanders in American history.” This legal battle highlights a fundamental tension between political power grabs and the principles of fair representation enshrined in Florida’s own constitution. The core of the dispute lies in Section 20 of the Florida Constitution, which explicitly states, “no apportionment plan or individual district shall be drawn with the intent to favor or disfavor a political party or incumbent.”
The lawsuit argues that the new map, championed by Governor Ron DeSantis, directly violates this constitutional mandate by manipulating district boundaries to overwhelmingly benefit Republican candidates and diminish the voting power of minority communities.… Continue reading
The recent Supreme Court decision has certainly thrown a wrench into the plans for some Louisiana Republicans, who are now reportedly weighing the possibility of canceling their US House primary elections. This is a rather dramatic development, stemming from a redistricting case and the potential implications of the Court’s ruling. Essentially, the core of the issue seems to be about how congressional districts are drawn and whether existing maps, or potential new ones, can be used in the upcoming elections.
The rationale behind this consideration of canceling primaries appears to be linked to the Supreme Court’s decision, which has apparently given a green light for certain redistricting approaches that might not have been as favorable before.… Continue reading
Democrats have filed a lawsuit challenging President Donald Trump’s executive order that restricts mail-in voting. The suit, brought forth by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, and other Democratic organizations, argues that the Constitution vests the authority to govern voting eligibility with states and Congress, not the president. This action represents a second legal confrontation over Trump’s control of election procedures, following a previous unsuccessful attempt to reshape election rules via executive order. Democrats assert that Trump is attempting to undermine democratic processes for perceived partisan gain, echoing claims that he has repeatedly sought to interfere in state-run elections based on unsubstantiated fraud allegations.
Read More
New Hampshire’s Secretary of State, David Scanlan, has stated that the state will not alter its election practices in response to President Trump’s executive order restricting mail-in voting. Scanlan emphasized that the federal government cannot override New Hampshire’s constitutional authority to conduct elections and that the state’s existing procedures ensure election security and transparency. This stance reaffirms New Hampshire’s long-held position that states, not the federal government, determine election rules and processes, particularly regarding voter registration and ballot accessibility.
Read More
This executive order seeks to establish federal lists of citizens and direct the U.S. Postal Service to transmit mail ballots only to individuals on these lists. The order directs the Department of Homeland Security to compile “state citizenship lists” from various federal records for states to verify their voter rolls. However, legal experts anticipate swift court challenges, citing the Constitution’s clear allocation of election administration powers to the states, making federal presidential overreach unlikely to stand. This action follows previous attempts by the president to influence election processes and impose stricter voter identification requirements.
Read More
The Supreme Court’s delay in ruling on Louisiana v. Callais has inadvertently prevented Southern states from immediately redrawing congressional maps to diminish Black voting power. With primary elections and ballot deadlines already passed or rapidly approaching in many states, the window to implement new redistricting plans before the 2026 midterms has largely closed. While a future ruling that weakens the Voting Rights Act could still impact state elections in 2027 and the subsequent congressional elections, the immediate impact on the upcoming House elections has been mitigated by the court’s timing.
Read More
President Donald Trump has expressed a desire for Republicans to “take over” and “nationalize” voting, citing unsubstantiated concerns about election fraud. However, legal experts have stated that such actions would violate the U.S. Constitution, which delegates election administration authority to the states. While Congress can enact laws to modify election regulations, it does not possess the power to nationalize the electoral process itself. These comments have revived concerns about Trump’s ongoing challenges to election outcomes and his potential influence on upcoming elections.
Read More
The Supreme Court has revived a lawsuit brought by Illinois Republican Congressman Mike Bost challenging a state law allowing mail-in ballots received after Election Day to be counted. The 7-2 decision, authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, determined that candidates have a concrete interest in the rules governing vote counting. Justices debated whether candidates have standing to challenge such laws, despite lower courts dismissing Bost’s suit. This case reflects broader Republican efforts to challenge mail-in voting practices, with sixteen states currently accepting mail-in ballots received after Election Day.
Read More
John Q. Hosedrinker 
Matt Underwood