voting

California voters went to the polls Tuesday to decide on a radical redistricting plan with national implications, but the campaign is shaping up to be a referendum on President Trump.

Proposition 50, a ballot measure about redrawing the state’s congressional districts, was crafted by Democrats in response to Trump urging Texas and other GOP-majority states to modify their congressional maps to favor Republicans, a move that was designed to maintain Republican control of the U.S. House of Representatives.

Opponents have said Proposition 50 is a power grab by Democrats that would blatantly disenfranchise Republican voters.

But supporters, fueled by a huge war chest in deep blue California, managed to make the vote about Trump and what they say are his efforts to erode democracy. The president has never been popular in California, but unprecedented months of immigration raids, tariffs and environmental rollbacks have only heightened the conflict.

“Trump is such a polarizing figure,” said Rick Hasen, a professor of law and political science at UCLA. “He commands great loyalty from one group of people and great animosity from others. … It’s not surprising that this measure has been portrayed as sticking it to Donald Trump or [California Gov.] Gavin Newsom.”

Proposition 50 underscores how hyperpartisan California politics have become. A UC Berkeley poll last week conducted in conjunction with The Times found more than 9 out of 10 Democrats supported Proposition 50 and a similar proportion of Republicans opposed it.

California voters had been bombarded with television ads, mailers and social media posts for weeks about the high-stakes special election, so much so that only 2% of likely voters were undecided, according to the poll.

As if on cue, Trump weighed in on Proposition 50 on Tuesday morning just as voting was getting underway.

“The Unconstitutional Redistricting Vote in California is a GIANT SCAM in that the entire process, in particular the Voting itself, is RIGGED,” Trump said on Truth Social just minutes after polling stations opened across California.

The president provided no evidence for his allegations.

Newsom dismissed the president’s claims on X as “the ramblings of an old man that knows he’s about to LOSE.”

At a White House briefing Tuesday afternoon, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt claimed, without providing examples, that California was receiving ballots in the name of undocumented immigrants who could not legally vote.

California’s top elections official, Secretary of State Shirley Weber, called Trump’s allegation “another baseless claim.”

“The bottom line is California elections have been validated by the courts,” Weber said in a statement. “California voters will not be deceived by someone who consistently makes desperate, unsubstantiated attempts to dissuade Americans from participating in our democracy.”

More than 6.3 million Californians — 28% of the state’s 23 million registered voters — had cast ballots as of Monday, according to a voting tracker run by Democratic redistricting expert Paul Mitchell. Ballots submitted by Democrats were outpacing votes by Republicans on Monday, though GOP voters were believed to be more likely to vote in person on election day.

Disabled Army veteran Micah Corpe, 50, had some choice words for Newsom outside a Twentynine Palms church that served as a polling place, calling the politician a “greasy used car salesman.”

Corpe, a Republican, described Proposition 50 as an effort by the governor to “do whatever he wants because he doesn’t like Trump.” At the same time, he said Texas’ decision to redraw its congressional districts was a necessity because of the influx of people moving there from California and other blue states.

“He fights [Trump] on everything,” Corpe said of Newsom. “Just give in a little to get a little. That’s all he’s got to do.”

Matt Lesenyie, an assistant professor of political science at Cal State Long Beach, said the seeds of Proposition 50 were sowed when it became clear that Republicans in Congress were not going to challenge Trump in an investigatory way or provide serious oversight.

“One of the benefits of our system is that there are checks designed in there and we haven’t exercised those checks in a good long time, so I think this is a Hail Mary for potentially doing that,” he said.

Bob Rowell, 72, said that in an ideal world Proposition 50 wouldn’t be necessary. But the Trump administration’s push to redraw lines in red states has created a “distinct danger of creating a never-ending Republican domination in Congress,” he said. So Rowell, a Green Party member, voted yes.

“I hope there’s some way to bring us back into balance,” he said.

Robert Hamilton, 35, an architectural drafter who lives in Twentynine Palms, sees Proposition 50 as a necessary step to push back on Trump’s policies, which he said are impinging on people’s rights. He’s proud of the role California is playing in this political moment.

“I think as a state we’re doing an excellent job of trying to push back against some of the more egregious oversteps of our liberties,” Hamilton said outside a church where he’d just cast his ballot in favor of the measure. “I do hope that if this measure is successful that other states will follow suit — not necessarily taking the same steps to redistrict but finding ways to at least hold the line while hopefully we get things sorted out.”

Times staff writers Seema Mehta and Katie King contributed to this report.

NEW YORK — President Trump’s request to add a documentary proof of citizenship requirement to the federal voter registration form cannot be enforced, a federal judge ruled Friday.

U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly in Washington, D.C., sided with Democratic and civil rights groups that sued the Trump administration over his executive order to overhaul U.S. elections.

She ruled that the proof-of-citizenship directive is an unconstitutional violation of the separation of powers, dealing a blow to the administration and its allies who have argued that such a mandate is necessary to restore public confidence that only Americans are voting in U.S. elections.

“Because our Constitution assigns responsibility for election regulation to the States and to Congress, this Court holds that the President lacks the authority to direct such changes,” Kollar-Kotelly wrote in her opinion.

She further emphasized that on matters related to setting qualifications for voting and regulating federal election procedures “the Constitution assigns no direct role to the President in either domain.”

Kollar-Kotelly echoed comments she made when she granted a preliminary injunction over the issue.

The ruling grants the plaintiffs a partial summary judgment that prohibits the proof-of-citizenship requirement from going into effect. It says the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, which has been considering adding the requirement to the federal voter form, is permanently barred from taking action to do so.

A message seeking comment from the White House was not immediately returned.

The lawsuit brought by the DNC and various civil rights groups will continue to play out to allow the judge to consider other challenges to Trump’s order. That includes a requirement that all mailed ballots be received, rather than just postmarked, by Election Day.

Other lawsuits against Trump’s election executive order are ongoing.

In early April, 19 Democratic state attorneys general asked a separate federal court to reject Trump’s executive order. Washington and Oregon, where virtually all voting is done with mailed ballots, followed with their own lawsuit against the order.

Swenson and Riccardi write for the Associated Press.

Oct. 31 (UPI) — A federal judge in Washington permanently blocked President Donald Trump‘s executive order requiring proof of citizenship for those who cast mail-in ballots.

The president lacks the authority to change federal election procedures because the Constitution places that authority with Congress and the respective states, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly ruled on Friday.

“The president directed the Election Assistance Commission to ‘take appropriate action’ to alter the national mail voter registration form to require documentary proof of United States citizenship,” Kollar-Kotelly said in her 81-page ruling.

Because Trump does not have the authority to order the EAC to alter federal election procedures, Kollar-Kotelly permanently enjoined the EAC and others from enforcing the president’s directive.

The ruling arises from challenges to Executive Order 14,248 — Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American Elections, which Trump signed on March 25.

In it, the president orders the EAC to require documentary proof of citizenship on the national mail voter registration form to ensure foreign nationals are not submitting votes via mail-in ballots.

State or local officials in turn would record the type of document used to show proof of citizenship.

The executive order also requires mail-in ballots to be received on or before election day for them to count.

The Democratic National Committee, League of United Latin American Citizens and League of Women Voters Education Fund filed the federal lawsuit against the president and the Republican National Committee to stop enforcement of the executive order.

“While the fight is far from over, we’re glad the court agreed that a president cannot ‘short circuit’ Congress and unilaterally use an illegal executive order to obliterate the rights of millions of voters,” said Marcia Johnson, who is chief counsel for the League of Women Voters, in a prepared statement.

Although Kollar-Kotelly blocked the enforcement of Trump’s executive order, other parts of the lawsuit are yet to be decided.

PORTLAND, Maine — Maine’s elections in recent years have been relatively free of problems, and verified cases of voter fraud are exceedingly rare.

That’s not stopping Republicans from pushing for major changes in the way the state conducts its voting.

Maine is one of two states with election-related initiatives on the Nov. 4 ballot but is putting the most far-reaching measure before voters. In Texas, Republicans are asking voters to make clear in the state constitution that people who are not U.S. citizens are ineligible to vote.

Maine’s Question 1 centers on requiring voter ID, but is more sweeping in nature. The initiative, which has the backing of an influential conservative group in the state, also would limit the use of drop boxes to just one per municipality and create restrictions for absentee voting even as the practice has been growing in popularity.

Voters in both states will decide on the measures at a time when President Trump continues to lie about widespread fraud leading to his loss in the 2020 presidential election and make unsubstantiated claims about future election-rigging, a strategy that has become routine during election years. Republicans in Congress and state legislatures have been pushing for proof of citizenship requirements to register and vote, but with only limited success.

Maine’s initiative would impose voter ID, restrict absentee voting

The Maine proposal seeks to require voters to produce a voter ID before casting a ballot, a provision that has been adopted in several other states, mostly those controlled by Republicans. In April, Wisconsin voters enshrined that state’s existing voter ID law into the state’s constitution.

Question 1 also would eliminate two days of absentee voting, prohibit requests for absentee ballots by phone or family members, end absentee voter status for seniors and people with disabilities, and limit the number of drop boxes, among other changes.

Absentee voting is popular in Maine, where Democrats control the Legislature and governor’s office and voters have elected a Republican and an independent as U.S. senators. Nearly half of voters there used absentee voting in the 2024 presidential election.

Gov. Janet Mills is one of many Democrats in the state speaking out against the proposed changes.

“Whether you vote in person or by absentee ballot, you can trust that your vote will be counted fairly,” Mills said. “But that fundamental right to vote is under attack from Question 1.”

Proponents of the voter ID push said it’s about shoring up election security.

“There’s been a lot of noise about what it would supposedly do, but here’s the simple truth: Question 1 is about securing Maine’s elections,” said Republican Rep. Laurel Libby, a proponent of the measure.

A key supporter of the ballot initiative is Dinner Table PAC, a conservative group in the state. Dinner Table launched Voter ID for ME, which has raised more than $600,000 to promote the initiative. The bulk of that money has come from the Republican State Leadership Committee, which advocates for Republican candidates and initiatives at the state level through the country. Save Maine Absentee Voting, a state group that opposes the initiative, has raised more than $1.6 million, with the National Education Assn. as its top donor.

The campaigning for and against the initiative is playing out as the state and FBI are investigating how dozens of unmarked ballots meant to be used in this year’s election arrived inside a woman’s Amazon order. The secretary of state’s office says the blank ballots, still bundled and wrapped in plastic, will not be used in the election.

Texas voters consider a citizenship requirement

In Texas, voters are deciding whether to add wording to the state constitution that Republican Gov. Greg Abbott and other backers said would guarantee that noncitizens will not be able to vote in elections there. State and federal laws already make it illegal for noncitizens to vote.

Thirteen states have made similar changes to their constitutions since North Dakota first did in 2018. Proposed constitutional amendments are on the November 2026 ballot in Kansas and South Dakota.

The measures have so far proven popular, winning approval with an average of 72% of the vote.

“I think it needs to sweep the nation,” said Republican state Rep. A.J. Louderback, who represents a district southwest of Houston. “I think we need to clean this mess up.”

Voters already have to attest they are U.S. citizens when they register, and voting by noncitizens, which is rare, is punishable as a felony and can lead to deportation.

Louderback and other supporters of such amendments point to policies in at least 20 communities across the country that allow noncitizens to vote in local elections, though none are in Texas. They include Oakland and San Francisco, where noncitizens can cast ballots in school board races if they have children in the public schools, the District of Columbia, and several towns in Maryland and Vermont.

Other states, including Kansas, have wording in their constitutions putting a citizenship requirement in affirmative terms: Any U.S. citizen over 18 is eligible to vote. In some states, amendments have rewritten the language to make it more of a prohibition: Only U.S. citizens are eligible to vote.

The article on voting in the Texas Constitution currently begins with a list of three “classes of persons not allowed to vote”: people under 18, convicted felons and those “who have been determined mentally incompetent by a court.” The Nov. 4 amendment would add a fourth, “persons who are not citizens of the United States.”

Critics say the proposed changes are unnecessary

Critics say the Maine voter ID requirement and Texas noncitizen prohibition are solutions in search of a problem and promote a longstanding conservative GOP narrative that noncitizen voting is a significant problem, when in fact it’s exceedingly rare.

In Texas, the secretary of state’s office recently announced it had found the names of 2,700 “potential noncitizens” on its registration rolls out of the state’s nearly 18.5 million registered voters.

Veronikah Warms, staff attorney at the Texas Civil Rights Project, said pushing the narrative encourages discrimination and stokes fear of state retaliation among naturalized citizens and people of color. Her group works to protect the rights of those groups and immigrants and opposes the proposed amendment.

“It just doesn’t serve any purpose besides furthering the lie that noncitizens are trying to subvert our democratic process,” she said. “This is just furthering a harmful narrative that will make it scarier for people to actually exercise their constitutional right.”

In Maine, approval of Question 1 would most likely make voting more difficult overall, said Mark Brewer, chair of the University of Maine political science department. He added that claims of widespread voter fraud are unsupported by evidence.

“The data show that the more hoops and restrictions you put on voting, the harder it is to vote and the fewer people will vote,” he said.

Whittle and Hanna write for the Associated Press. Hanna reported from Topeka, Kan.

President Trump urged California voters on Sunday not to cast mail-in ballots or vote early in the California election about redistricting — the direct opposite of the message from state GOP leaders.

Repeating his false claim that former President Biden beat him in 2020 because the election was rigged, Trump argued that the November special election about redistricting in California would be rigged, as would the 2026 midterm election to determine control of Congress.

“No mail-in or ‘Early’ Voting, Yes to Voter ID! Watch how totally dishonest the California Prop Vote is! Millions of Ballots being ‘shipped,’” Trump wrote on Truth Social. “GET SMART REPUBLICANS, BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE!!!”

Proposition 50, a ballot measure proposed by Gov. Gavin Newsom and other California Democrats to redraw the state’s congressional districts to boost their party’s ranks in the U.S. House of Representatives, is on the Nov. 4 ballot.

The rare mid-decade redistricting effort was in response to Trump urging GOP-led states, initially Texas, to increase the number of Republicans in the House in the 2026 midterm election to allow him to continue implementing his agenda in his final two years in the White House.

Newsom responded to Trump on X: “Ramblings of an old man that knows he’s going to LOSE.”

Trump has not weighed in on the merits of Proposition 50, while prominent Democrats who support it have, including former President Obama.

More than 4 million mail-in ballots — 18% of the ballots sent to California’s 23 million voters — had been returned as of Friday, according to a vote tracker run by Democratic redistricting expert Paul Mitchell, who drew the proposed maps on the ballot. Democrats continue to outpace Republicans in returning ballots, 51% to 28%. Voters registered without a party preference or with other political parties have returned 21% of the ballots.

Early-voting centers also opened in 29 counties on Saturday.

Turnout figures were alarming Republicans leaders before Trump’s message.

“It’s simple. Republicans need to stop complaining and vote. We ask and ask and ask and yet turnout still lags,” the San Diego GOP posted on X. “To win this one GOP turnout needs to be materially better than average. It’s very doable but won’t just happen. Work it.”

Republicans historically voted early while Democrats were more likely to cast ballots on election day. Trump upended this dynamic, creating dissonance with GOP leaders across the nation who recognized the value of banking early votes. And it completely contradicts the messaging by the opponents of Proposition 50.

Jessica Millan Patterson, a former chair of the state GOP and leader of the “No on Prop. 50 — Stop Sacramento’s Power Grab” committee, has been a longtime proponent of urging Republican voters to cast ballots as early and conveniently as possible.

“Sacramento politicians rushed this costly election for partisan gain, and mistakes have been made,” she said Sunday evening. “If Californians want change from our state’s failed one-party rule, it starts by turning out to vote no on Proposition 50.”

Mamdani, a Democratic Socialist, has energised liberal voters and has strongly condemned Israel’s war on Gaza.

Polling places have opened for the start of in-person voting for one of the year’s most closely watched elections in the United States, the New York City mayor’s race.

New Yorkers on Saturday began choosing between Democrat Zohran Mamdani, who has built up a sizeable lead in the polls, Republican Curtis Sliwa and former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, a Democrat appearing on the ballot as an independent. The incumbent mayor, Eric Adams, is also on the ballot, but dropped out of the race last month and recently threw his support behind Cuomo.

Recommended Stories

list of 3 itemsend of list

Mamdani, a Democratic Socialist, has energised liberal voters, drawn to his proposals for universal, free child care, free buses, and a rent freeze for New Yorkers living in about 1 million rent-regulated apartments.

Cuomo has assailed Mamdani, who would be the city’s first Muslim mayor, over his criticism of Israel.

Mamdani, who has weathered anti-Muslim rhetoric during the contest, says Israel’s military actions in Gaza have amounted to genocide, a view shared by a UN inquiry, genocide experts and numerous rights groups.

In an emotional speech on Friday, Mamdani said the attacks against him are “racist, baseless”.

“To be Muslim in New York is to expect indignity, but indignity does not make us distinct. There are many New Yorkers who face it. It is the tolerance of that indignity that does,” said Mamdani, who in June beat Cuomo to achieve a landslide victory in the Democratic mayoral primary.

Cuomo has portrayed Mamdani’s policies as naive and financially irresponsible. He has appealed to voters to pick him because of his experience as the state’s governor, a position he gave up in 2021 after multiple women accused him of sexual harassment.

New York has allowed early voting since 2019, and it has become relatively popular. In June’s mayoral primary, about 35 percent of the ballots were cast early and in person, according to the city’s campaign finance board.

 

In neighbouring New Jersey, the governor’s race is also being closely followed. It features Republican state Assemblyman Jack Ciattarelli against Democratic US Representative Mikie Sherrill. New Jersey adopted early voting in 2021.

The off-year elections in the two states could be bellwethers for Democratic Party leaders as they try to decide what kinds of candidates might be best to lead their resistance to Republican President Donald Trump’s agenda.

The races have spotlighted affordability and cost of living issues as well as ongoing divisions within the Democratic Party, said Ashley Koning, director of the Eagleton Center for Public Interest Polling at Rutgers University in New Jersey.

“New York City pits the progressive wing against the establishment old guard in Mamdani versus Cuomo, while New Jersey is banking on moderate candidate Mikie Sherrill to appeal to its broad middle,” she said.

The New Jersey gubernatorial candidates, in their final debate earlier this month, sparred over the federal government shutdown, Sherrill’s military records, Trump’s policies and the high cost of living in the state.

The winner would succeed Democratic Governor Phil Murphy, who is term-limited.

The U.S. Department of Justice will monitor polling sites in five California counties as voters decide on Proposition 50 on Nov. 4, it said Friday, after being asked to do so by state GOP officials.

Monitoring, which is routinely conducted by the Justice Department, will occur across Southern California and in the Central Valley, in Fresno, Kern, Los Angeles, Orange and Riverside counties, the Justice Department said.

Proposition 50 — one of November’s most hotly-watched electoral issues, with national political implications — asks California voters whether the state should redraw its congressional districts to better favor Democrats. It is a response to President Trump’s pressure campaign on Texas and other red states to redraw their lines in favor of Republicans, and is considered a must-pass measure if Democrats hope to regain control of the House in next year’s midterms.

The Justice Department said its monitors would work to “ensure transparency, ballot security, and compliance with federal law,” including the Voting Rights Act, National Voter Registration Act, Help America Vote Act, Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act, and the Civil Rights Act.

“Transparency at the polls translates into faith in the electoral process, and this Department of Justice is committed to upholding the highest standards of election integrity,” Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi said. “We will commit the resources necessary to ensure the American people get the fair, free, and transparent elections they deserve.”

“Our democracy depends on free and fair elections,” said acting U.S. Atty. Bill Essayli, the top federal prosecutor in the L.A. region, who will be helping to coordinate the monitoring effort. “We will work tirelessly to uphold and protect the integrity of the election process.”

The Justice Department also announced monitors will be stationed in Passaic County, N.J. That state is holding a consequential gubernatorial election.

While federal monitoring is routine, it has been viewed with heightened skepticism from both parties in recent years. When the Justice Department under President Biden announced monitoring in 86 jurisdictions across 27 states during last November’s presidential election, some Republican-led states balked and sought to block the effort.

Democrats have been highly skeptical of the Trump administration’s plans for monitoring elections, in part because of Trump’s relentless denial of past election losses — including his own to Biden in 2020 — and his appointment of fellow election deniers to high-ranking positions in his administration, including in the Justice Department.

Corrin Rankin, chair of the California Republican Party, had specifically asked the Justice Department to send monitors to the five counties in a letter to the Justice Department on Monday.

Rankin wrote that the party had “received reports of irregularities” in each of the counties during recent elections, which they feared could “undermine either the willingness of voters to participate in the election or their confidence in the announced results of the election” this November.

Rankin called Proposition 50 a “politically charged question,” and said it was “imperative to have robust voter participation and public confidence in the results regardless of the outcome.”

Matt Shupe, a spokesperson for the California GOP, declined to comment on the letter Friday.

California officials, including Secretary of State Shirley Weber and California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta, have promised safe and fair elections and said their teams will also be out in the field enforcing California’s election laws in November.

“Our election laws provide the backbone for a free and fair election, and as California’s top law enforcement officer, I will do everything in my power to protect your right to vote,” Bonta recently said. “In the lead-up to the election and on Election Day, my office will be on call to provide assistance to the Secretary of State’s Office in enforcing California’s election laws, as needed, through a team of attorneys and administrative staff located across the state.”

Dean Logan, elections chief for Los Angeles County, said in a statement Friday that federal election monitors are welcome to view election activities and that the state has “clear laws and guidelines that support observation and prohibit election interference.”

“The presence of election observers is not unusual and is a standard practice across the country,” Logan said.

Logan didn’t directly address the California GOP’s specific statements about Los Angeles County, but said that the county regularly updates and verifies voter records in coordination with state and federal agencies and protects the integrity of the election process.

“Voters can have confidence their ballot is handled securely and counted accurately,” he said.

This article will be updated.

Oct. 20 (UPI) — The U.S. Supreme Court is weighing a decision in the case Louisiana vs. Callais that may guide how the Voting Rights Act is enforced.

The high court heard rearguments last week in the case over the Louisiana legislature’s redistricted congressional map. A decision may be weeks, if not months, away.

The legislature redrew its congressional map in 2024 to comply with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. The new map included two districts where a majority of voters are Black out of six districts total.

Plaintiffs in Louisiana vs. Callais argue that the redrawn map violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution because race was a guiding consideration in redistricting.

The Supreme Court has broadened the scope of this case with reargument under a supplemental question: Is Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act constitutional?

The collision between these two pieces of doctrine, both intended to insure equality in political participation, raises a critical question about how race and representation should be approached, one that the court is now poised to answer.

“The court is signaling that there has to be some reconciliation that happens beyond the status quo,” Atiba Ellis, Laura B. Chisholm Distinguished Research Scholar and professor of law in the Case Western Reserve School of Law, told UPI. “It’s hard to predict exactly how far that will go.”

One goal, different approaches

Section 2 and the Equal Protection Clause may share an underlying purpose but they take different approaches to meeting that goal.

Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 prohibits racial discrimination in election practices.

The extremes, according to Ellis, are that the court could determine Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act is unconstitutional or it could reinterpret the test that it has long used in addressing concerns about race in redistricting cases.

Somewhere between the extremes is the court striking down the map at question but preserving Section 2.

“On the scale of possible solutions, it demonstrates that the court, informed by its colorblind jurisprudence that we saw in Students for Fair Admissions vs. Harvard College, is wanting to further restrict if not all but abolish the use of race-conscious remedies in the elections context,” Ellis said.

Legal tests, cases

In the 2023 case Students for Fair Admissions vs. Harvard, the Supreme Court ruled that using race as a factor in college admissions violates the Equal Protection Clause.

The test that guides Section 2 enforcement, referred to as the Gingles test, is the criteria required to prove vote dilution under Section 2. It is based on the court’s decision in the case Thornburg vs. Gingles in 1986.

The Gingles test is a “results test,” Ellis said.

“We simply look at a practice like redistricting in its context and the results that it has,” he said. “Thornburg v. Gingles basically created a roadmap for the inquiry. Then a court can make an inquiry within the totality of the circumstances, including the impact, the history, the background and determine whether that practice violates Section 2.”

Equal Protection Clause enforcement is guided in part by a precedent established in the case Shaw vs. Reno. This case in 1993 was over an oddly shaped majority-Black congressional district drawn in North Carolina.

The Supreme Court struck down this map, ruling that it violated the Equal Protection Clause because race was a predominant factor in its creation.

Unlike the Gingles test, the Shaw test is based on intent, according to Ellis.

“From the Shaw line to today, legislatures have had to basically walk this balance between not making race the predominant factor in redistricting — but you also can’t use race divisively by subsuming a minority group’s political power to the majority’s advantage,” Ellis said. “The former is what the Shaw line of precedent is out to do. The latter is what Section 2 does.”

“The problem, at least according to the Callais plaintiffs bringing the suit and other political entities that are supporting their position, is that these two precedents are inherently irreconcilable,” he continued.

John Cusick, assistant counsel at the Legal Defense Fund, serves as a member of the counsel in the Louisiana vs. Callais case arguing in defense of the Louisiana congressional map. He represents the appellants in the case Robinson vs. Landry, which was the impetus for Louisiana to redraw its congressional map.

Cusick told UPI that the case is part of a broader effort to limit race-conscious remedies to Civil Rights violations.

“What’s at stake in this case is that opponents are seeking to roll back progress while there is a simple truth that remains: that Black voters in Louisiana deserve the same fair and effective representation as many other communities throughout the country,” Cusick said. “So Louisianans have organized and legislated and litigated for the promise of a fair legislative map.”

“What’s consistent here is that decades of Supreme Court precedent make clear that districts created to remedy the type of racial discrimination against Black voters that’s at the heart of this case is clear and consistent and well-settled law,” he continued. “That Louisiana creating a first and second majority minority district is constitutional and not, per se, a racial gerrymander.”

Broader issue

Based on the Supreme Court precedents at play, Cusick believes Louisiana’s congressional map will be found to be permissible. However, the supplemental question over whether the constitutionality of Section 2 as a whole could send ripples across Civil Rights law.

“The Voting Rights Act is the crown jewel of Civil Rights legislation,” Cusick said. “It has the greatest effect on this country’s promise of full and equal citizenship for all Americans. We are seeing efforts throughout the country to attack many of the tools that Civil Rights legislatures have relied on, whether they are constitutional protections, whether they are statutory protections, that identify racial discrimination, that root it out and provide fair and effective remedies in doing so.”

Cusick adds that attempts to peel away Section 2 can also have effects beyond Civil Rights protections against racial discrimination. Protections for people based on gender identity and disability are also at risk.

“If the court is adhering to the supplemental question presented, this case shouldn’t have a broader impact on the Voting Rights Act, specifically Section 2, let alone other areas of the law,” Cusick said. “While we’re hopeful of that, we’re not naive.”

WASHINGTON  — The Supreme Court may help the GOP keep control of the House of Representatives next year by clearing the way for Republican-led states to redraw election districts now held by Black Democrats.

That prospect formed the backdrop on Wednesday as the justices debated the future of the Voting Rights Act in a case from Louisiana.

The Trump administration’s top courtroom attorney urged he justices to rule that partisan politics, not racial fairness, should guide the drawing election districts for Congress and state legislatures.

“This court held that race-based affirmative action in higher education must come to an end,” Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer wrote in his brief. The same is true, he said, for using the Voting Rights Act to draw legislative districts that are likely to elect a Black or Latino candidate.

Too often, he said, the civil rights law has been “deployed as a form of electoral race-based affirmative action to undo a state’s constitutional pursuit of political ends.”

The court’s conservatives lean in that direction and sought to limit the use of race for drawing district boundaries. But the five-member majority has not struck down the use of race for drawing district lines.

But the Trump administration and Louisiana’s Republican leaders argued that now was the time to do so.

If the court’s conservatives hand down such a ruling in the months ahead, it would permit Republican-led states across the South to redraw the congressional districts of a dozen or more Black Democrats.

“There’s reason for alarm,” said Harvard law professor Nicholas Stephanopoulous. “The consequences for minority representation would likely be devastating. In particular, states with unified Republican governments would have a green light to flip as many Democratic minority-opportunity districts as possible.”

Such a ruling would also upend the Voting Rights Act as it had been understood since the 1980s.

As originally enacted in 1965, the historic measure put the federal government on the side of Blacks in registering to vote and casting ballots.

But in 1982, Republicans and Democrats in Congress took note that these new Black voters were often shut out of electing anyone to office. White lawmakers could draw maps that put whites in the majority in all or nearly all the districts.

Seeking a change, Congress amended the law to allow legal challenges when discrimination results in minority voters having “less opportunity … to elect representatives of their choice.”

In decades after, the Supreme Court and the Justice Department pressed the states, and the South in particular, to draw at least some electoral districts that were likely to elect a Black candidate. These legal challenges turned on evidence that white voters in the state would not support a Black candidate.

But since he joined the court in 1991, Justice Clarence Thomas has argued that drawing districts based on race is unconstitutional and should be prohibited. Justices Samuel A. Alito, Neil M. Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett dissented with Thomas two years ago when the court by a 5-4 vote approved a second congressional district in Alabama that elected a Black Democrat.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts wrote the opinion. Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh cast the deciding fifth vote but also said he was open to the argument that “race-based redistricting cannot extend indefinitely into the future.”

That issue is now before the court in the Louisiana case.

It has six congressional districts, and about one-third of its population is Black.

Prior to this decade, the New Orleans area elected a Black representative, and in response to a voting right suit, it was ordered to draw a second district where a Black candidate had a good chance to win.

But to protect its leading House Republicans — Speaker Mike Johnson and Majority Leader Steve Scalise — the state drew a new elongated district that elected Rep. Cleo Fields, a Black Democrat.

Now the state and the Trump administration argue the court should strike down that district because it was drawn based on race and free the state to replace him with a white Republican.

Edward Felten, professor in the Department of Computer Science at Princeton University, demonstrates problems with a voting machine during a House Administration Committee Hearing on the reliability of voting systems in 2006, on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C. St. Louis-based Liberty Vote acquired Dominion Thursday. File Photo by Roger L. Wollenberg/UPI | License Photo

Oct. 9 (UPI) — St. Louis-based Liberty Vote has acquired Dominion Voting Systems, among the nation’s largest election technology companies and one that was wrongly accused of election rigging.

Liberty is the nation’s largest provider of electronic poll information technology and was founded by former Republican elections director Scott Leinendecker. Terms of the deal were not disclosed. In a statement Thursday, Liberty said the company would be 100% American owned, and that “as of today, Dominion is gone.”

“Liberty Vote signals a new chapter for American elections — one where trust is built from the ground up,” Leinendecker said. “Liberty Vote is committed to delivering election technology that prioritizes paper-based transparency, security, and simplicity so that voters can be assured that every ballot is filled-in accurately and fairly counted.”

Liberty’s stated goals align closely with those of the Trump administration’s efforts to restore paper ballot counting, require voter identification at the polls, restrict mail-in voting and restore trust in American elections.

Dominion was at the center of controversy and, ultimately, a series of lawsuits following during and after the 2020 presidential election, especially in states such as Georgia, where Joe Biden narrowly won the vote. Its election technology was used by millions of Americans in 27 states in last year’s elections. John Poulos, Dominion’s founder and CEO, confirmed the sale.

Liberty said facilitating third-party auditing of its election systems is among the company’s other priorities. Conservative election watchers have consistently called for such audits, most notably following the 2020 election in Arizona as a way to combat voter fraud.

Independent studies have shown that the practice is extraordinarily rare, and that a majority of states already conduct internal post-election audits.

“This announcement raises a lot of questions, questions that I’m sure a lot of states with current Dominion contracts are going to want answers to,” said David Becker, who oversees the nonpartisan Center for Election Innovation & Research, and an election expert.

Liberty Vote, together with KNOWiNK, also founded by Leinendecker, will have voting systems in 40 states, a Liberty Vote official said.

It was revealed during last night’s live show that there’s been a huge change to the way viewers can vote for their favourite celebrities and now fans have shared their thoughts

A huge voting change on Strictly Come Dancing has sparked fury among fans over fears it will alter the results. During last night’s (Saturday 27 September) first live show, host Claudia Winkleman revealed “this year it’s changing”.

Bringing in pro dancer Neil Jones to explain, he began: “This year for the first time on Strictly, vote will be online only,” before telling fans they would need to register for a BBC account to have their say.

In previous years, viewers at home have been able to call in or text to place their votes for their favourite stars but it looks like it’s all change this time around. Fans were understandably shocked by the news and took to X to share their frustrations.

One unhappy person expressed: “#StrictlyComeDancing #Strictly You have just alienated a huge part of your audience by getting rid of the phone vote. I cannot imagine my elderly mother & thousands like her, able to log on to register a vote on her favourite programme. Another strike against the elderly.”

Another viewer fumed: “So @bbcstrictly You’ve completely prevented any of the older generation that don’t possess a smart phone or computer from voting by making it online only. You should be ashamed #Strictly.”

READ MORE: Strictly star Thomas Skinner protected by Tom Holland’s ex-bodyguard after death threatsREAD MORE: Strictly’s pregnant Dianne shows off bump in first live show as she makes sweet baby admission

Somebody else argued: “#Strictly very sad how exclusive voting is this year internet only. I have friends who have watched every series & always voted by phone. Not this year.

“They don’t have a smart phone or internet at home. I wonder how any others won’t be voting this year?”

While a fourth added: “Getting rid of the voting by phone is so wrong. I’m sure there are so many people who don’t have smartphones and who used to vote that way #Strictly.”

The voting change isn’t the only change that’s been incorporated onto the show this year, as head judge Shirley Ballas revealed at the end of the show.

For the last seven years, Shirley has been responsible for the gruelling decision of choosing which couple in the bottom two should leave if the votes are tied after the dance off.

However, now it’s been announced that the power is going to be shared between the four judges, with a different judge holding the power each week.

The change will start from next week, when the first couple will be eliminated from the series. As of yet, Strictly aren’t revealing which judge has the power, but the celebs are worried…

A video clip of the celebrities reacting to the news was played as Vicky Pattison said: “This changes everything!,” with Ross King adding: “I just can’t believe it!”

EastEnders star Balvinder Sopal says: “I was nervous, but this is another level,” and George Clarke expresses: “Is it too late to run away?”

Viewers at home were once again unimpressed by the changes on their favourite show as someone said: “i think would’ve made more sense for it to be down to the public vote instead of a different judge each week but okay,” while another commented: “I was hoping it would be a ‘public vote if the judges are tied’ but nope.”

Like this story? For more of the latest showbiz news and gossip, follow Mirror Celebs on TikTok , Snapchat , Instagram , Twitter , Facebook , YouTube and Threads .