Think you can recognize what congressional districts look like? Take this quiz to see if you can pick out which pieces were drawn on maps by legislatures and which ones are abstract doodles created by our staff.
This quiz is powered by CredSpark.

Think you can recognize what congressional districts look like? Take this quiz to see if you can pick out which pieces were drawn on maps by legislatures and which ones are abstract doodles created by our staff.
This quiz is powered by CredSpark.

The Supreme Court recently ruled that Louisiana violated the Constitution in creating a new Black-majority voting district. This was after a Federal court had ruled that the previous map, by packing Blacks all in one district, diluted their votes, which violated the Voting Rights Act.
The question is what impact the decision in Louisiana v Callais will have on §2 of the Voting Rights Act ... and on the current gerrymander contest to gain safe seats in the House. The conservative majority said that the decision left the Act intact. The liberal minority, in a strong dissent by Justice Kagan, said that the practical impact was to "render §2 all but a dead letter," making it likely that existing Black-majority districts will not remain for long.
I agree with Justin Kagan's critique, but I believe there is a way forward.
The Court found that compliance with §2 of the Voting Rights Act does supply the compelling state interest to allow the use of race as a factor (in a positive way). But, the Court stated that:
1. The Voting Rights Act only guarantees minorities the same opportunity to elect members of their choice as others, which typically depends on where you live and the voting preferences of others in the area; there is a randomness to the process.
2. To allow a minority-majority district, the minority voters need to be in a compact area and sufficiently numerous so as to allow a reasonably configured district. Otherwise, as in the case before them, the district is not in compliance with the Act and race is clearly a discriminating factor..
Because of the facts of this case—a rambling, not compact district—the district was not in compliance with the Voting Rights Act and thus constituted an unconstitutional use of race as a discriminatory factor.
The decision on these facts makes sense. If Blacks are so scattered that a Black-majority district meeting these criteria cannot be drawn, then the Black vote is not being diluted by White legislators; Black's have diluted their vote by living apart from one another and in the midst of Whites. That's a natural result of integration. As is commonly said of court decisions: different facts, different decisions.
The decision could have and should have ended there. The troublesome parts of the decision—the necessity of finding an intent to discriminate and the analysis of partisan v racial motives—were totally unrelated to the facts before the Court. These matters would be critical in cases claiming state action to deprive Black voters of a majority district.
.The Court stated one would have to show a pattern from which the strong inference is that the state's intent was to use race as a factor, that it drew the districts to afford minority residents less opportunity "because of their race."
And in a final twist, the Court stated that if racial bloc voting could be explained by partisan affiliation—Blacks vote Democratic because they are Democrats, not because they are Black—then a map which diluted their votes would be permissible because the Court has held that partisan manipulation of districts is allowable. (Why, if these two intents—racial and partisan—are evident, the rule is to choose the less problematic one is another matter.)
Bottom line: The Court's imposition of both the need to find an intent to discriminate because of race and the need to show that diluting the Black vote was not the same as diluting the Democratic vote creates a Catch-22 that certainly could gut the Act,.
How do you get past this Catch-22? For example, if a large contiguous area of Black voters was carved up and combined with White areas, or if such an area exists but was not created a district, what would one do?
I would argue that both deprived Blacks of the "same opportunity" as others and provided evidence of the use of race as a factor. In either situation, if one makes the argument that Blacks are prevented from voting with other Blacks, although they live together in a tight, contiguous area with enough voters to have allowed a "reasonably configured" district, then they are being deprived of the same opportunity as other voters to elect representatives of their choosing.
By the Court's own reasoning, this would be a violation of the Act. The Court said that the Act does not require the creation of such a district; I would argue otherwise.
Further, one would argue that Blacks vote Democratic not because they are committed Democrats, but because they are Blacks and Democrats are the Party that fights for the interests of Blacks. Thus, it is their vote as Blacks, not as Democrats, that is seeking to be diluted. The analysis required by the Court might show that Blacks vote as a bloc for Democrats, but that does not mean that they vote as Democrats rather than as Blacks.
The Court's analysis is simplistic. For example, Blacks have a desire to elect Black representatives, not just Democrats. There is no question that the creation of Black-majority districts under the Voting Rights Act made the major expansion of Black officials, at the local, state, and federal levels, possible. And it is highly likely that Southern White Republicans have a particular desire to reduce Black Democratic elected officials, apart from their being Democrats. Thus, the Republican effort in the South to dilute the Black vote is motivated largely by racial concerns, not just partisan ones. But as I show next, this intentional discrimination requirement is invalid.
The 15th Amendment itself says nothing about motivation or intent. It simply states that people cannot be denied rights "on account of race." That is to say, if you're Black, you lose rights; the Amendment doesn't say anything about intent.
The requirement to show intent regarding voting rights was added by the Court in a 1980 case, Mobile v. Bolden. In response, Congress, in 1982, amended the Act and explicitly adopted a "results" test, rather than an "intent" test. In an earlier case, White (1973), which influenced Congress's amendment, there was no mention of discriminatory intent; rather, there was ample evidence that gave rise to an inference that the state had acted to "prevent the election of candidates preferred by minority voters."
The Court notes this action by Congress but then proceeds to ignore it. Nor does it apply "originalist" analysis to the question of the need for intent. And it does not distinguish the Court case in which the necessity of intent first appeared, Washington v Davis (1976), the facts of which were a facially nondiscriminatory hiring test.
So the key to moving beyond this decision is to argue that by breaking up a cohesive compact Black-majority district or by not creating one where the conditions exist, the state is depriving Blacks of the same opportunity to elect representatives (Black) of their choice, in violation of the Act. Plus, the effect is clearly racial discrimination, and though not required, there is cause to infer such an intent.
The decision in Louisiana v Callais should not be the final word on this matter.
Ronald L. Hirsch is a teacher, legal aid lawyer, survey researcher, nonprofit executive, consultant, composer, author, and volunteer. He is a graduate of Brown University and the University of Chicago Law School and the author of We Still Hold These Truths. Read more of his writing at www.PreservingAmericanValues.com
When Congress failed to approve funding for the Department of Homeland Security for the remainder of this fiscal year in February, almost all of its employees began to work without pay. That situation changed, however, on April 3, when President Donald Trump issued a memorandum ordering the DHS secretary and director of the Office of Management and Budget to “use funds that have a reasonable and logical nexus to the functions of DHS” to pay its employees and issue back pay.
Trump shifted money to avoid the political embarrassment that would be caused by the collapse of airport security screening through the actions of disgruntled agents and the disruption to air travel that would ensue. But it’s legally dubious.
The money the White House is tapping into to pay people like Transportation Safety Administration airport screeners and Coast Guard members was approved by Congress, but not through regular appropriations. DHS is using a pot of $10 billion dollars set aside in last year’s massive budget reconciliation bill – the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) – to cover payroll for more than 100,000 employees, the same bill that reserved $75 billion in multi-year operating funds for Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Accessing that money to pay DHS employees, however, is legally dubious. The funds are made available in Section 90007 of the OBBBA until September 2029, but specifically for supporting DHS’s work “to safeguard the borders of the United States.” TSA agents working security lines in U.S. airports for domestic flights are not safeguarding the border, for example. Similarly for FEMA and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), parts of DHS substantially focused on domestic security.
Government watchdog groups and other appropriations experts argue that tapping into that $10 billion runs afoul of the Antideficiency Act (ADA), which prohibits federal employees from moving funds from a purpose given in law to a purpose not given for the money in law. The law gives teeth to Congress’s “power of the purse” under the Constitution. Former Senate Budget Committee and Office of Management and Budget staffer Bobby Kogan thought using this section of the law for other purposes was a clear ADA violation.
The Trump Administration made a similar violation during the government shutdown last October by using research and development funds for military personnel pay.
The trouble with the ADA is that it relies on agency heads to report violations to the President and the Comptroller General at the Government Accountability Office (GAO), an arm of Congress currently controlled by the Republican majorities of the House and Senate. In this case, the president directed the violation and Republicans in Congress do not want GAO to challenge it. Although violating the Antideficiency Act carries with it criminal penalties, no one has ever been prosecuted under it. Unlike the current situation, most violations have been by mistake.
Legal or not, the OBBA funds will run dry at the end of this week based on the rate at which DHS is spending it down.
Congress is moving forward to end the DHS funding lapse. The Senate began the process of budget reconciliation on funding for DHS for the remainder of the fiscal year and beyond this week. Because it allows for expedited consideration of spending and revenue bills, reconciliation will allow the Senate to overcome the 60-vote threshold holding back this funding in the regular appropriations process, which Democrats have leveraged for more than two months over their concerns about immigration enforcement agencies within DHS.
As the name implies, budget reconciliation requires the House and Senate to agree on which programs will be funded and at what level. That hasn’t happened yet, as some House Republicans want to fund immigration enforcement at a higher level than the Senate and include other items like funding for the Iran war.
Nevertheless, the unchecked ability of the executive branch to use money appropriated by Congress for other purposes violates the bedrock principle of the separation of the power of the purse from the power of the sword, which dates back to the English Civil War and Glorious Revolution of the 17th century. The Constitution grants Congress the power to determine how federal funds will be spent as a check on the presidency. What we’re experiencing now is a Congress and Executive Branch that does not care to check the President to the harm of the government’s democratic structure.
Using the reconciliation process still undermines congressional power in this case. The framework the Senate approved would extend funding for Immigration and Customs Enforcement and U.S. Customs and Border Protection for more than three years. Regular appropriations bills generally apply only to one fiscal year. They also carry with them language requiring agencies perform certain oversight-related duties or prohibitions on using funds for specific purposes. ICE and CBP will get a blank check through the next Congress, which, if Democrats retake the majorities, will have to live with it.
DHS Funding During the Shutdown was originally published by GovTrack and is republished with permission.
Amid the political and military standoff among the United States, Israel, and Iran, it is civilians — the people with no say in these decisions — who bear the fear, disruption, and uncertainty of every strike and escalation. This week, The Fulcrum’s executive editor, Hugo Balta, reports from Israel with a single aim: to humanize the war by focusing not on the spectacle of Operation Epic Fury, but on the ordinary lives being reshaped by it.
TEL AVIV — The Middle East stands on edge as tensions between Iran, Israel, and the United States escalated sharply, fueling fears that a localized confrontation could widen into a regional war.The crisis intensified around the Strait of Hormuz, where Iran launched missiles and drones at local targets, and the United States responded with military force while warning Tehran against further escalation. President Donald Trump vowed the U.S. would “respond decisively” if Iran struck American forces or disrupted maritime traffic, even as Iranian attacks targeted ships and critical infrastructure. U.S. officials reported intercepting multiple missiles and drones and destroying several small Iranian vessels attempting to interfere with commercial shipping — a series of clashes that underscored how quickly the situation could spiral into a broader conflict.
Against this backdrop of rising international alarm, Israel braces for the possibility of a prolonged war. Israeli officials said the country remained on “high alert,” reinforcing air defenses and activating emergency protocols as military leaders warned that additional missile barrages from Iran or its proxies were likely. Reporting from the Jerusalem Post describes a nation preparing for the worst — a conflict that could unfold on multiple fronts and stretch Israel’s emergency systems to their limits.
Israel’s multi‑layered missile defense network is considered one of the most advanced in the world, routinely achieving interception rates above 90% against short‑range rockets. Its tiered system — Iron Dome, David’s Sling, and the Arrow family — is designed to counter everything from low‑altitude projectiles to long‑range ballistic missiles. Even so, defense officials acknowledge that no system is impenetrable; large‑scale saturation attacks can overwhelm the batteries, allowing some missiles to slip through.
A building in Tel Aviv lies in ruins, reduced to rubble after a series of missile strikes. Hugo Balta
When Iranian missiles began raining toward Israel in late February, Tel Aviv emptied almost instantly. Streets that normally thrum with traffic, bicycles, and beachgoers fell silent as residents rushed into the only places that could guarantee a measure of safety: the city’s underground shelters. It was a routine Israelis were forced to repeat for the second time in less than a year, echoing the 12‑day war the previous June.
Life inside the bunkers settled into a tense but familiar rhythm. Many arrived with emergency bags already packed, a sign of how deeply preparedness has become woven into daily life. Families clustered together, parents soothed restless children, and small groups prayed or quietly exchanged updates, all while trying to stay calm as the distant thud of interceptions echoed overhead. Outside, the city’s normally vibrant streets were nearly deserted, replaced by the wail of sirens and the sense of a city collectively holding its breath underground.
I toured many of the bomb sites across Tel Aviv to see the destruction left behind by the missile attacks. What I found were monuments of violence — jagged concrete, twisted metal, and the rubble of bombed‑out buildings standing in stark contrast to the everyday life continuing around them. People walked dogs and chatted on sidewalks as if the wreckage were simply part of the urban landscape. The impression was unmistakable: Tel Aviv residents have become so accustomed to living under the strain of conflict that the physical scars of war have faded into the background, almost invisible.
Bomb shelters in Tel Aviv sit ready beneath the city, reinforced spaces built to shield residents during missile attacks.




I also visited both public and private bomb shelters. A resident told me bluntly that there simply aren’t enough shelters in the city — or the country — to adequately protect everyone. "There's a third of the population that has no shelter or or cannot get to a shelter, said Maya Siminovich, Tel Aviv resident. "It's something that is not addressed and people complain". The shelters I saw were functional but far from comfortable: bare concrete rooms with the basics needed to survive, including full bathrooms, but little else. They were cold, utilitarian spaces, built for protection rather than comfort. "Here, obviously, we cannot fit thousands of people. It can fit maybe 200 standing, more or less standing, said Siminovich. "If you have to be a long time here, children sleep, adults, elderly, they come with chairs or with mattresses, so you have less space for all the people."
The constant threat of missile attacks and the regular need to seek refuge in bunkers have created a significant psychological burden on the population. Siminovich notes that the experience is particularly damaging for children, stating, "It's traumatic." This trauma becomes a permanent part of their routine; even during periods of relative calm, Siminovich said children will instinctively ask "where's the shelter" when going out for something as simple as ice cream.
This environment of persistent danger leads to a state of chronic high stress that manifests in physical and emotional exhaustion. Reflecting on periods of intense conflict, Siminovich observed that "people were reporting in general terms that they were very tired. Everybody was tired and I think that's a symptom of being in high stress for so long." She also highlighted a form of hypervigilance where everyday sounds trigger a survival response: "I hear a bang any bang now and I don't think I'm scared, but my heart jumps and I stop breathing. Or a motorcycle that has this sound like a siren."
While the country may project an image of resilience, Siminovich suggests that the true mental health impact is deep and likely to be long-lasting. She says: that "the toll I think we're only we will see it in the years to come." Beyond the psychological effects, the immediate physical danger of the stress is also noted, as people have suffered "heart attack[s]" or "accidents" while frantically "running for the shelter."
People try to make these spaces feel familiar. Posters appeared on the walls, toys were set aside for children, and mattresses were arranged to soften the hard floors — small gestures that showed how residents worked to carve out a sense of normalcy in places built for crisis.
Across the region, Iranians were enduring their own harrowing “double‑threat” reality, where the danger of airstrikes collided with an intensifying internal security crackdown. Daily life in major cities had become almost invisible, with people staying indoors to avoid both bombardment and the Basij militia patrolling the empty streets. Families navigated frequent sirens, internet blackouts, and severe shortages of basic goods, all while trying to protect their loved ones under extraordinary strain. Caught between the physical threat of falling bombs and the heavy‑handed repression of a regime tightening its grip amid the chaos, many Iranians described a deep sense of fear, exhaustion, and abandonment by the outside world.
Hugo Balta (l) speaks with Meir Javedanfar (r) thefulcrum.us
At a February bombing site in Tel Aviv, I spoke with Meir Javedanfar—born in Iran and now one of Israel’s leading Middle East commentators. He left Iran in 1987, and his life on both sides of the divide gives him a rare vantage point on this conflict.
In recent weeks, Donald Trump has publicly called for regime change in Iran, urging the Iranian people to “take over” their government following U.S. military strikes. Reporting at the time noted that while the administration initially emphasized removing the regime, some officials later clarified that they were not seeking a “regime change war,” framing their focus instead on preventing Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.
Javedanfar said this shift in messaging is closely watched inside Iran, where many people view such statements with concern. “People thought President Trump was going to help them defeat the (Mojtaba Khamenei) regime, he said. “Many people in Iran are going to feel disillusioned.”
Javedanfar also told me he worries that Trump’s hardline stance toward Iran reverberates most sharply among civilians — in Iran, in Israel, and throughout the wider Middle East.
The scale of the bombardment is staggering. By early March, Iran had launched over 500 ballistic and cruise missiles and more than 2,000 drones since the start of the war, sending millions of Israelis repeatedly underground.
As Tel Aviv watches the latest confrontation in the Strait of Hormuz, these underground worlds remain a stark reminder of the city’s vulnerability — and its capacity to adapt. The war forced Israelis to live beneath their own city, but it also showed how communities hold together when the world above becomes unrecognizable.
The scars of the attacks are still visible. So is the resilience.
- YouTube youtu.be
Hugo Balta is the executive editor of The Fulcrum and the publisher of the Latino News Network.
Coverage of this report was made possible in part with support from Fuente Latina.

Female service members face higher rates of sexual assault, limited reproductive healthcare, and policy barriers shaped by the Hyde Amendment and the Dobbs decision. This piece examines how military and VA policies are failing women in uniform and after service, widening inequality and restricting access to critical care.
Our sisters in arms are facing a life cycle of abandonment. Female service members have a separation rate 28% higher than men, largely attributed to sexual assault, family planning, and childcare—inherently sexist issues that threaten to weaken our force. When women are more likely to be raped by a fellow soldier than killed by the enemy, with decades of unsuccessful efforts to reduce rape in the ranks, the military is lucky women volunteer to serve at all. But for those who do take the oath, the betrayal only deepens. In states with abortion bans, the uniform offers no protection against healthcare deserts created by Dobbs. Instead of expanding care, the Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs have retreated, leaving these women with less access to care than they would have in a federal prison. Their president might be a blue falcon, but We the People are going to have their backs.
Just as the military sees more rapes than the civilian population, it also sees more unplanned pregnancies. Maternal death rates are higher in America than in other developed nations, but they are higher still in states with abortion restrictions. In fact, for women of reproductive age who live there, death rates are higher, independent of pregnancy. Following Dobbs, 40% of female service members saw increased risks to their health and careers, simply by being stationed at one of the 100 military installations housed in one of those states, while Pentagon officials admitted: “there is not much they can do [for them].”
The DOD’s efforts to defend against the damage of Dobbs have been feeble at best. Their original strategy involved sending women to other states to receive essential healthcare now unavailable locally. Though then Defense Secretary Austin asked commanders not to be discriminatory or retaliatory about reproductive healthcare decisions, women reasonably feared professional consequences, as “some leaders [viewed] the necessary time off…as an unwanted distraction.” For junior enlisted service members, a legal abortion could also cost half a month’s pay. Nevertheless, as soon as Secretary Hegseth took over, the Pentagon rescinded all these policies. Nothing has replaced them. As veteran and Governor Mikie Sherill put it, “servicewomen…shouldn’t have to risk their lives while stationed in a state with severe abortion bans like Texas or Florida. When they said, "no man left behind,” did they mean to exclude women?
Current federal law—specifically the Hyde Amendment—prevents the military from publicly funding abortion services or performing abortions even if the patient pays out-of-pocket, with limited exceptions. Elective abortion is one of the safest medical procedures available, about 14 times safer than childbirth, yet only 91 have been performed in U.S. military hospitals since 2016, while over 860,000 were performed nationally in 2017 alone. Unfortunately, there are gaps in women’s healthcare access that the military should reasonably be able—but is not allowed—to close.
The betrayal does not end at the moment of discharge either. This January, the VA effectively closed its doors on women seeking reproductive autonomy, ending nearly all abortion services and counseling for veterans—even in states that protect abortion rights. Agency officials said they were simply complying with a Department of Justice (DOJ) opinion that reversed a Biden-era policy that had expanded abortion access. Now, even most counseling for veterans regarding abortions has ended. Women are the fastest-growing segment of the veteran population. By abdicating its responsibility to the 462,000 women of reproductive age who rely on VA healthcare, the agency has abandoned its obligation to take care of veterans.
In March, Democrats narrowly lost a pivotal effort to overturn the VA’s restrictive policy. Senator Patty Murray, the first woman to ever serve on the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee, said after: “Republicans sent a clear message that they don’t care if your health is in danger, if you’re a veteran, or if you’ve been raped—they want abortion outlawed everywhere, in every circumstance, for everyone.” This abandonment forces our veterans to navigate “confusing and often dangerous barriers like shifting laws, inconsistent information, and growing legal risk.” For survivors of military sexual trauma, this policy could even force them to carry pregnancies resulting from the very crimes the military failed to prevent while they were in uniform. The burden shouldn’t be theirs to carry alone.
The need for intervention is urgent and growing. The Brigid Alliance, an organization that helps women get the abortion care they need, reported that 8% of their clients last year were U.S. veterans, military members, or their families; the Vet Voice Foundation (VVF) has also seen an uptick in requests. Now, the Brigid Alliance and VVF have partnered up to place high-visibility billboards outside major VA clinics in states like Georgia, New Mexico, and Virginia with resources for women seeking abortions or other reproductive healthcare. These billboards offer logistical information for travel arrangements, lodging, and funding for procedures, with a simple, powerful message: “We’ve got your six.” Together, they offer a beacon of hope for women. We must follow their example.
Moving forward, the DOD should build bases only in states where reproductive healthcare is codified, close bases in states restricting abortion access, and/or ensure women will no longer be stationed there. If this seems dramatic, expensive, or unnecessary, then it may be time to consider the obvious, sensible alternative: end the Hyde Amendment. Then military healthcare providers could actually provide necessary healthcare at any base in the country, which would be a stark and welcome contrast to its lack of progress in preventing sexual assault.
Our servicewomen may be sent to an illegal war of indefinite length with Iran. The least this government can do for those willing to put their lives on the line is to provide them with the full spectrum of healthcare. A pregnant veteran should be able to go to her local VA to get counseling and care; she should not have to navigate a confusing system and potentially risk jail time for taking a medication abortion pill. These patriots deserve support, respect, and care. Let’s get their six.
Julie Roland was a Naval Officer for ten years, deploying to both the South China Sea and the Persian Gulf as a helicopter pilot before separating in June 2025 as a Lieutenant Commander. She has a law degree from the University of San Diego, a Master of Laws from Columbia University, and is a member of the Truman National Security Project.