Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Racism & MAGA-Gerrymandering—Combating the Noxious Mix

The Supreme Court's Callais decision takes the wrong side.

Opinion

Activists march across Edmund Pettus Bridge.

Activists march across Edmund Pettus Bridge on May 16, 2026 in Selma, Alabama.

Jason Davis / Getty Images

There is an old saying: If anyone insists something definitely is not about money; it is definitely about money. The Supreme Court’s right-wing majority claims that its recent election districting rulings are not about abetting racism or siding with MAGA politics, but they are definitely about both.

The Court’s recent Louisiana v. Callais decision cynically demands that anyone challenging election districts as violating the Voting Rights Act must “disentangle race from politics” and show that intentional racial discrimination, rather than politics, was the motivator when minority communities are divided and segments are placed into majority white districts.


Race and politics have been inextricably entwined since this country was founded, and they continue to be. Disentanglement is impossible, and demonstrating intentional racial discrimination rather than discriminatory impact is almost impossible. The Court’s new requirements are like multiplying 0 times 0.001; that provides a zero chance of prevailing.

Practically speaking, now if a state - or local - legislature claims that it split up concentrations of African American, Latino, Native American, Asian or other minority residents to make election districts that maximize a party’s electoral advantage or ensure an incumbent’s reelection, that allows the abridgment of the minority population’s ability to elect representatives of their choice.

That’s a true Devil’s Cocktail: Pour political partisanship together with racial discrimination and: Presto, racism allegedly disappears. And, there is more to the mix.

The Court further decloaked its favor for MAGA political advantage by scampering to put the Callais ruling to immediate effect, rather than allowing the normal period for that. The consequence of its rush was Louisiana - under the immediate spurious “emergency” order of its governor - halted early primary voting so that the state could eliminate one of its two congressional districts held by an African American.

Several Southern states quickly started uprooting their electoral processes to eliminate so-called minority opportunity congressional districts to gain MAGA political advantage. It is estimated that one-third of Congressional Black Caucus’ members may be forced out of Congress in the wake of the Callais ruling, and it will have dramatic consequences as state and local election districts are redrawn.

Added to that, immediately after its Callais ruling the Court approved a shadow docket petition to fast track Alabama implementing a congressional district map declared discriminatory by the Court in 2023, sending the case back to the lower federal court to consider in light of the Callais ruling. On May 25, the federal district court blocked use of the 2023 map, stating that it is “tainted by intentional race-based discrimination”. Another shadow docket “emergency” appeal will likely put the map - and the question of whether racism can be demonstrated - before the Supreme Court in the weeks ahead.

It’s an understatement to say that the immediate impact of the Court’s Callais ruling is confusion, if not a chaotic primary period, for candidates, election administrators and voters. In some of the affected states filing deadlines had passed, ballots composition was set, and in one case ballots were cast.

That all defies the Supreme Court’s “rule” that courts not issue decisions so close to elections as to cause such confusion - the so-called Purcell Principle, from its 2006 case Purcell v. Gonzallez. The uneven history of applying the Purcell Principle has often disadvantaged minority voters, but the Callais ruling demolished the principle altogether.

At base, the Callais decision has to be taken together with Shelby County, Alabama v. Holder, decided in 2013, and the lesser known 2021 holding in Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee. In combination, those rulings knocked out the viability of the VRA. The false premise of those decisions is that VRA tests for racial discrimination became outdated due to dramatic social progress.

While the Callais decision eviscerated the protections against racial discrimination in drawing election districts, Brnovich gutted VRA challenges to discriminatory barriers against voting. The Shelby decision decimated sections of the VRA that prevented jurisdictions with flagrant histories of racial discrimination in elections from making changes to voting laws and procedures without preclearance from the US Justice Department or the federal district court in Washington, DC.

A remaining element of the not yet fully buried VRA concerns the power of private individuals and organizations to lodge cases under it. That practice, which is responsible for the majority of VRA cases, was negated by the US Eighth Circuit Court of Appeal in its 2023 Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians v. Howe ruling. On May 18, the Supreme Court vacated that ruling and, rather than reversing it as Justice Jackson called for in her dissent, sent the case back to the 8th Circuit to consider in light of Callais. If the 8th Circuit’s radical view were to prevail only the US Justice Department could bring VRA cases, and that Department is now firmly under MAGA control.

The systematic destruction of the VRA is an historic setback. It echoes the destruction of the political progress of post-Civil War Reconstruction, while abrogating gains of the Civil Rights Movement. Combatting the MAGA attack against civil rights and democracy requires connecting with the historic movements that fought racism and advanced American democracy.

On Saturday, May 16, thousands demonstrated in Selma and Montgomery, Alabama, standing against MAGA-Gerrymandering and the broader push against minority rights and democracy. The demonstration, attended by civil rights, religious and other leaders, kicked off the All Roads Lead to the South campaign, which among other things is targeting five southern state legislatures where current electoral maps are being shredded. And, the NAACP’s new Out of Bounds Campaign is calling on Black athletes and their supporters to boycott public universities in states that change maps to diminish African American voting rights and representation.

Dynamic and creative campaigns are needed, applying the energy and lessons of 1964’s Freedom Summer, across the South and more widely to counter the effects of voter suppression, map-rigging, and MAGA organizing. Like Freedom Summer, the effort must be multifaceted and sustained over a long run. And, a lesson of Freedom Summer and every democracy movement is that to be successful a broad coalition, converging various popular interests, is needed.

We will need civil rights, immigration rights, interfaith, labor, women’s, LGBTQ+, legal, and other organizations to raise the demand for voting rights and trustworthy elections to secure honest outcomes in 2026 and beyond. Possibilities for Supreme Court reform, renewing the VRA, passing state VRAs, and addressing other urgent issues depend on that. Groups and candidates that support democracy must reach out broadly and enlist large numbers of people in electoral defense actions if that is to happen.

May the Court’s VRA decisions cause a powerful counter reaction, stimulating an overwhelming response against racism and MAGA domination. We all have a responsibility to help make that so.

Pat Merloe provides strategic advice to groups focused on democracy and trustworthy elections in the U.S. and internationally.

Read More

gavel on top of a US flag
a judge's gavel on top of a flag
Photo by Bermix Studio on Unsplash

60 Former DOJ Attorneys Oppose California Election Lawsuit

Sixty former Department of Justice attorneys from both Democratic and Republican administrations are urging a federal appeals court to reject the Justice Department's last-minute intervention in California's election. They argue that the intervention violates longstanding department policies designed to prevent election interference. The former officials cite guidelines such as Justice Manual Section 9-85.500, which advises against overt investigative or prosecutorial steps near an election, and the department's non-interference policy, which seeks to avoid actions that could affect election outcomes or integrity.

In an amicus brief filed by the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law and Complex Appellate Litigation Group LLP, the former officials argue that DOJ is taking the unusual step of seeking election-related relief just days before the midterm election, contrary to department policies that discourage such actions near Election Day. They say these policies aim to prevent election interference, discourage voter participation, or disrupt election administration. The brief cites United States v. Cohen, 152 F.3d 321 (4th Cir. 1998), where courts recognized the importance of avoiding last-minute changes to election procedures. The amici also cite Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U.S. 1 (2006), in which the Supreme Court cautioned against altering election rules close to an election, as such changes can cause confusion and undermine public confidence in the electoral process.

Keep ReadingShow less
Shadow on a wall of Judge hitting gavel in court, concept of justice, law, and legal protection

DOJ lawsuits in Alaska and California preview post-Election Day fights over certification and seating winners. Here’s how officials and voters can prepare.

Aitor Diago / Getty Images

The Lawsuits Will Lose. The Delays Will Still Win.

Less than two weeks before Election Day, President Trump’s Justice Department asked a federal court to stop Alaska from certifying its U.S. Senate race if Republican Sen. Dan Sullivan loses to Democrat Mary Peltola. The lawsuit claims that a second candidate on the ballot, Daniel J. Sullivan, will confuse voters. That argument went nowhere in June, when the Alaska Supreme Court ruled that the state had no legal way to remove him from the ballot. Asked about the suit, the president took credit. “I’m the one that said do it,” he told reporters.

Alongside the Alaska suit, the Trump administration sued California to keep the state from counting mail ballots from 20,000 people it calls “likely” noncitizens. Over the summer, the Department of Homeland Security put that number at 190,000. Legal experts expect both suits to fail, as so many suits like them have. Still, Alaska and California give us an early look at what the weeks after November 3rd could bring: recount demands, calls to review or throw out ballots, and pressure to delay seating winners.

Keep ReadingShow less
Shadow on a wall of Judge hitting gavel in court, concept of justice, law, and legal protection
The Rule of Law depends on action, not blind optimism. Explore how critical hope, civic engagement, and accountability can strengthen democracy.
Aitor Diago / Getty Images

The Law Was Supposed to Be a Shield. I Found the Bars.

I used to believe that learning the law meant learning the architecture of protection.

I believed statutes existed because someone, somewhere, had anticipated injustice and decided certain lines should never be crossed. I believed due process meant power could not simply declare itself correct. I believed whistleblower protections, grievance procedures, public-records laws, administrative review and courts formed a structure designed to restrain institutional misconduct.

Keep ReadingShow less
​Christa Pike

Christa Pike in an undated photo.

(Tennessee Department of Correction/ZUMA Press/TNS)

How death penalty opponents share the blame for botched executions

“Botched” is a perfectly fine word for golf, cooking, or home repair. It seems inadequate for the taking of a life, even the life of Christa Pike, a heinous murderer.

In 1996, a jury found Pike guilty of the torture and murder of her Jobs Corps classmate, Colleen Slemmer. Pike was sentenced to death. In the 30 years since, her case has gone through at least seven major rounds of appeal and judicial review, including four petitions to the Supreme Court. All were rejected. This doesn’t even include the many more attempts to reopen or reverse her sentence that went nowhere. She is guilty, lawfully and rightly convicted.

Keep ReadingShow less