approval

Reporting from Washington — The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld highly partisan state election maps that permit one party to win most seats, even when most voters cast ballots for the other side.

Partisan gerrymandering has allowed Republicans to control power in several closely divided states. And it has been repeatedly condemned for depriving citizens of a fair vote and letting politicians rig the outcomes.

But Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., speaking for a 5-4 conservative majority, ruled that citizens may not sue in federal court over the issue.

Partisan gerrymandering claims “present political questions beyond the reach of federal courts,” he said, tossing out lower court rulings that North Carolina’s Republicans and Maryland’s Democrats had drawn skewed districts to entrench their party in power.

Although the Supreme Court has repeatedly said racial gerrymandering is unconstitutional, it has never struck down an election map because it was unfairly partisan, despite four decades of lawsuits over the issue.

Thursday’s decision goes even further, closing the courthouse door to future claims. “Federal judges have no license to reallocate political power between the two major political parties, with no plausible grant of authority in the Constitution and no legal standards to limit and direct their decisions,” he wrote in Rucho vs. Common Cause.

The court’s four liberal justices dissented, warning that new technology has made partisan gerrymandering easier and more precise than ever before.

“These are not your grandfather’s — let alone the framers’ — gerrymanders,” Justice Elena Kagan said.

“The partisan gerrymanders here debased and dishonored our democracy, turning upside-down the core American idea that all governmental power derives from the people,” she said, reading her dissent in the court. “Of all the time to abandon the court’s duty to declare the law, this was not the one. The practices challenged in these cases imperil our system of government.”

The ruling substantially raises the stakes for the 2020 election. In many states, whichever party controls the state legislature and the governor’s office at that time will be in a prime position to gerrymander electoral districts in their favor and lock in political power for years to come.

“This is obviously a deeply disappointing outcome,” said Allison Riggs, a voting rights lawyer who represented the League of Women Voters in the North Carolina case. There, the state’s Republican leaders drew an election map that aimed to lock in 10 of 13 seats for the GOP.

“Unlike citizens in some other states, North Carolinians cannot force redistricting reform upon recalcitrant legislators,” Riggs said. “We must raise our voices even more loudly, demanding change.”

While reform advocates were distraught over the decision — envisioning an era of ruthless, no-holds-barred gerrymandering — there is reason to believe the result may not be as drastic as feared.

Numerous states, including California, have taken the line-drawing process away from politicians and placed it in the hands of independent commissioners charged with drawing fair and competitive political maps.

Roberts appeared to endorse these state reforms, even though he voted in dissent four years ago in an Arizona case to strike down these voter initiatives as improper. He said then the power to draw election districts was reserved to the state legislature alone.

“Where we go from here is where we’ve been,” said Justin Levitt, an election law expert at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles. “Most of the real action has been in state courts or through ballot initiatives. … We are back to a limited set of tools, but tools that are still immensely powerful.”

States are also getting more involved. He noted that state supreme courts in Pennsylvania and Florida have struck down maps as overly partisan. The Supreme Court’s decision blocks federal lawsuits over gerrymandering, but it does not alter the authority of state courts to make rulings based on their own state constitutions. In 2018, voters in five states — Colorado, Michigan, Missouri, Ohio and Utah — overhauled their redistricting processes by creating independent or bipartisan map-drawing commissions.

This year’s cases began with the 2010 midterm elections, in which Republicans won sweeping victories and took full control in politically divided states such as Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin and North Carolina. Armed with new census data, GOP lawmakers drew election maps that all but guaranteed their candidates would win a majority. In Pennsylvania, Republicans won 13 of 18 congressional seats, and 12 of 16 in Ohio.

Last year, however, political reformers had high hopes that Justice Anthony M. Kennedy would join the four liberals and cast the crucial fifth vote against partisan gerrymandering. He had voiced repeated concern that voters were being cheated if politicians could decide the outcomes in advance.

But those hopes were dashed last June when the chief justice engineered a procedural ruling that scuttled a gerrymandering case from Wisconsin.

Kennedy then retired, and his replacement, Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, cast the fifth vote with Roberts on Thursday to close the doors to these claims.

Justices reviewed two cases in reaching the decision.

In North Carolina, Republican leaders flatly admitted they drew an election map for “partisan advantage.” One state leader said he drew a map to give Republicans a 10-to-3 advantage, only because he could not devise a map that would yield an 11-to-2 advantage.

In Maryland, Democratic leaders shifted hundreds of thousands of voters with the aim of ousting a veteran Republican from Congress and creating a reliably Democratic district.

A three-judge court in North Carolina declared the election map unconstitutional and said it deprived Democrats of a fair vote. Another three-judge panel ruled Maryland’s Democrats deprived Republicans of a fair vote and free election.

In January, the justices agreed to hear appeals from both states. Last month, the court also put on hold gerrymandering rulings from Ohio and Michigan.

The chief justice wrote one opinion for the two cases and overturned the rulings from North Carolina and Maryland. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr., Neil M. Gorsuch and Kavanaugh signed on to the Roberts opinion.

Joining Kagan in dissent were Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor.

More stories from David G. Savage »

WASHINGTON — The White House started tearing down part of the East Wing, the traditional base of operations for the first lady, to build President Trump’s $250-million ballroom despite lacking approval for construction from the federal agency that oversees such projects.

Dramatic photos of the demolition work that began Monday showed construction equipment tearing into the East Wing façade and windows and other building parts in tatters on the ground. Some reporters watched from a park near the Treasury Department, which is next to the East Wing.

On Wednesday, the New York Times reported that the plan now called for the demolition of the entire East Wing and that the tear-down should be completed by Sunday. Citing a source, The Times said it marks an escalation over earlier plans for the ballroom.

Trump announced the start of construction in a social media post and referenced the work while hosting 2025 college baseball champs Louisiana State University and LSU-Shreveport in the East Room. He noted the work was happening “right behind us.”

“We have a lot of construction going on, which you might hear periodically,” he said, adding, “It just started today.”

The White House has moved ahead with the massive construction project despite not yet having sign-off from the National Capital Planning Commission, which approves construction work and major renovations to government buildings in the Washington area.

Its chairman, Will Scharf, who is also the White House staff secretary and one of Trump’s top aides, said at the commission’s September meeting that the agency does not have jurisdiction over demolition or site preparation work for buildings on federal property.

“What we deal with is essentially construction, vertical build,” Scharf said last month.

It was unclear whether the White House had submitted the ballroom plans for the agency’s review and approval. The White House did not respond to a request for comment and the commission’s offices are closed because of the government shutdown.

The Republican president had said in July when the project was announced that the ballroom would not interfere with the mansion itself.

“It’ll be near it but not touching it and pays total respect to the existing building, which I’m the biggest fan of,” he said of the White House.

The East Wing houses several offices, including those of the first lady. It was built in 1902 and and has been renovated over the years, with a second story added in 1942, according to the White House.

Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, said those East Wing offices will be temporarily relocated during construction and that wing of the building will be modernized and renovated.

“Nothing will be torn down,” Leavitt said when she announced the project in July.

Trump insists that presidents have desired such a ballroom for 150 years and that he’s adding the massive 90,000-square-foot, glass-walled space because the East Room, which is the largest room in the White House with an approximately 200-person capacity, is too small. He also has said he does not like the idea of hosting kings, queens, presidents and prime ministers in pavilions on the South Lawn.

Trump said in the social media announcement that the project would be completed “with zero cost to the American Taxpayer! The White House Ballroom is being privately funded by many generous Patriots, Great American Companies, and, yours truly.”

The ballroom will be the biggest structural change to the Executive Mansion since the addition in 1948 of the Truman Balcony overlooking the South Lawn, even dwarfing the residence itself.

At a dinner he hosted last week for some of the wealthy business executives who are donating money toward the construction cost, Trump said the project had grown in size and now will accommodate 999 people. The capacity was 650 seated people at the July announcement.

The White House has said it will disclose information on who has contributed money to build the ballroom, but has yet to do so.

Trump also said at last week’s event that the head of Carrier Global Corp., a leading manufacturer of heating, ventilation and air-conditioning systems, had offered to donate the air-conditioning system for the ballroom.

Carrier confirmed to the Associated Press on Monday that it had done so. A cost estimate was not immediately available.

“Carrier is honored to provide the new iconic ballroom at the White House with a world-class, energy-efficient HVAC system, bringing comfort to distinguished guests and dignitaries in this historic setting for years to come,” the company said in an emailed statement.

The clearing of trees on the south grounds and other site preparation work for the construction started in September. Plans call for the ballroom to be ready before Trump’s term ends in January 2029.

Superville writes for the Associated Press.

Egypt’s foreign minister says his country is working with Qatar and Turkiye to convince Hamas to accept United States President Donald Trump’s proposal to end Israel’s nearly two-year war on Gaza, and warned that the conflict would escalate if the Palestinian group refused.

Speaking at the French Institute of International Relations in Paris on Thursday, Badr Abdelatty said it was clear that Hamas had to disarm and that Israel should not be given an excuse to carry on with its assault on Gaza.

“Let’s not give any excuse for one party to use Hamas as a pretext for this mad daily killings of civilians. What’s happening is far beyond the seventh of October,” he said, referring to the Palestinian group’s 2023 attack on Israel, in which 1,129 people were killed, according to Israeli tallies.

The Palestinian Health Ministry says Israel’s offensive on Gaza has killed more than 66,000 people, mostly women and children, but experts believe the actual death toll could be up to three times higher.

“It is beyond revenge. This is ethnic cleansing and genocide in motion. So enough is enough,” Abdelatty said.

Earlier this week, the White House unveiled a 20-point document that called for an immediate ceasefire, an exchange of captives held by Hamas for Palestinian political prisoners held by Israel, a staged Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, Hamas disarmament and a transitional government led by an international body.

On Tuesday, Trump gave Hamas three to four days to agree to the plan.

Palestinians long for the war to end, but many believe the plan heavily favours Israel, and a Hamas official told The Associated Press news agency that some elements were unacceptable, without elaborating.

In past negotiations, Hamas has insisted on a full Israeli withdrawal from the famine-struck enclave and said it was seeking a permanent ceasefire, with guarantees that displaced families can return to their homes, particularly in the north of Gaza, where Israeli forces are intensifying attacks.

Many ‘holes that need to be filled’

Qatar and Egypt, two key mediators, said Trump’s plan requires more negotiations on certain elements.

Abdelatty said Cairo was coordinating with Qatar and Turkiye to convince Hamas to respond positively to the plan, but he remained very cautious.

“If Hamas refuse, you know, then it would be very difficult. And of course, we will have more escalation. So that’s why we are exerting our intensive efforts in order to make this plan applicable and to get the approval of Hamas,” he said.

Abdelatty said while he was broadly supportive of Trump’s proposal for Gaza, more talks were needed on it.

“There are a lot of holes that need to be filled; we need more discussions on how to implement it, especially on two important issues – governance and security arrangements,” he said. “We are supportive of the Trump plan and the vision to end war and need to move forward.”

When asked whether he feared the Trump plan could lead to the forced displacement of Palestinians, he said Egypt would not accept that.

“Displacement will not happen, it will not happen because displacement means the end of the Palestinian cause,” he said. “We will not allow this to happen under any circumstances.”

Meanwhile, the White House said Trump expects Hamas to accept his Gaza proposal, stressing that the US president could impose consequences if the group does not do so.

Since Israel’s war on Gaza began, the US has often pushed Israel-backed proposals unlikely to garner Palestinian support and then blamed Hamas as the primary obstacle to ending the conflict.

“It’s a red line that the president of the United States is going to have to draw, and I’m confident that he will,” White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said in an interview with Fox News.

For her part, Kaja Kallas, the European Union’s foreign policy chief, called on Hamas to accept the proposal.

“We urge Hamas to follow the plan, release all remaining hostages and lay down its arms.  The EU calls on those who have influence to bear to pass these messages to Hamas,” a statement read.

Meanwhile, President Vladimir Putin said Russia was willing to support the plan, but only if it leads to a two-state solution.

Jean-Noel Barrot, France’s foreign minister, said Hamas “has lost”.

According to the plan, Hamas members who commit to peaceful co-existence and to relinquish their weapons will be given amnesty, while those who wish to leave Gaza will be provided safe passage to receiving countries.

“Hamas bears a very heavy responsibility for the catastrophe experienced by the Palestinians,” Barrot told the AFP news agency. “It must accept its own surrender.”

Experts say the move echoes past Western attempts to reshape the Middle East without local input.

“With this agreement, it’s clear that what they’re presenting is a formula that they tried to use before in Iraq, and I think they utterly failed,” political analyst Xavier Abu Eid told Al Jazeera.

Abu Eid noted that the involvement of figures such as Tony Blair, who joined the US war in Iraq while serving as British prime minister in 2003, in Trump’s proposal is concerning for many in the region.

“The fact that they’re trying to bring in a group of foreigners led by someone with a very dark history in our region, like Tony Blair, is not something that would make people very enthusiastic,” he said.