Supreme Court Ruling Could Change Electorate in Favor of Republicans
Politico reported that two well-known voting rights groups warned that eliminating or limiting Section 2 would allow Republican-controlled legislatures to redraw up to 19 congressional districts in their favor.
Fair Fight Action and the Black Voters Matter Fund put together a new analysis that was only shared with POLITICO. It says that if Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act is struck down, it could almost guarantee that Republicans will keep control of the House of Representatives.
The groups that wrote the paper say that it is still feasible to have a verdict before the midterm elections next year, even if it is not likely. The groups found 27 congressional seats across the country that may be redrawn to help Republicans if the current legal and political situation stays the same. Nineteen of these changes are directly related to the possible loss of Section 2 protections.
LaTosha Brown, co-founder of the Black Voters Matter Fund, said that doing so would “clear the way for a one-party system where power serves the powerful and silences the people.” She did not address the constitutional issue of drawing congressional districts based only on race, which is what the high court is looking into.
For years, Republicans have tried to reduce or do rid of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which says that voting laws and redistricting can’t be based on race. They say that the rule unjustly helps Democrats by making districts with a lot of Democrats and a lot of Republicans.
The Supreme Court has turned down those arguments before, but voting rights supporters are worried that the next Louisiana v. Callais case could be a turning point.
On the other hand, Democrats might potentially try to take advantage of any changes to the statute by redrawing district borders in states that are very Democratic and yet have VRA safeguards. Politico stated that analysts think these kinds of chances would be few and far between compared to the larger redistricting benefits that Republican-controlled legislatures could get.
The Voting Rights Act is utilized in redistricting to stop racial gerrymandering that makes it harder for minority voters to have their voices heard. States usually follow the rules by designing districts that provide racial and ethnic minority groups a fair chance to vote for the candidates they want.
Politico said that many experts on election law think that the Supreme Court could limit the VRA’s reach in its next decision. This could lead to big changes in how Congress is represented in the South.
The article says that this kind of decision might lead to Democrats being kicked out of states like Alabama, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Mississippi. A lot of other states, like Louisiana, Georgia, North Carolina, Texas, and Florida, would probably still have at least one Democratic member of Congress, but the number of Democrats in Congress would go down a lot.
The research is coming out at the same time as Republicans are pushing for redistricting across the country before the November elections. The White House strongly supports this plan, which might help the GOP keep its tiny majority in the House. Redrawing the lines in the middle of the cycle is rare, although it has happened before and has already made six more Republican-leaning districts in two states.
Several other states run by Republicans are likely to do the same, and that number might climb a lot if important protections in the Voting Rights Act are taken away.
In response, Fair Fight Action and the Black Voters Matter Fund are telling Democrats to come up with a “aggressive and immediate” plan to fight Republican redistricting moves that are already happening.
Voting rights groups that support the Democratic Party are preparing for what they call a possible crisis if the U.S. Supreme Court weakens a key part of the Voting Rights Act, one of the most important pieces of civil rights legislation in the country.
The case that is causing the worry is Louisiana v. Callais, where the result will decide the future of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which says that redistricting plans can’t make it harder for racial minorities to vote."""My husband brought his mistress to our daughter’s wedding—and then asked me to give her my seat beside him.
"""My husband brought his mistress to our daughter’s wedding—and then asked me to give her my seat beside him. For a few seconds, I honestly thought I was looking at the wrong table, because my name card had vanished and Melissa’s was sitting exactly where mine had been on every seating chart. She wore a pale blue silk dress, lifted her champagne as if she belonged there, and avoided my eyes when I stopped beside the chair. David stood up, pointed to an empty seat at the next table, and quietly said, “For tonight, why don’t you sit over there?”
I had spent fourteen months helping our daughter, Emily, plan that wedding, from dress fittings and florist meetings to late-night calls over napkins and seating charts. That morning, while I fastened the pearl buttons on her gown, she made me promise I would enjoy the day and not let anything between her father and me touch it. I meant that promise, because whatever was left of my marriage, I would not make my daughter’s wedding the battlefield where it died. But David had apparently made a different plan, and he expected me to cooperate with it in silence.
When I asked what Melissa was doing there, David’s face showed guilt for only a second before he hid it behind irritation. He acted as though I were creating the problem simply by noticing that his mistress was seated at the family table in the place reserved for the bride’s mother. Then Melissa looked at me and said, “Honey, today really isn’t the day to make Emily uncomfortable.” I almost laughed, because the woman who had been sleeping with my husband for nearly a year was now warning me not to embarrass my own daughter.
I could feel people settling into nearby seats, laughing and talking, unaware that my marriage was being quietly rearranged in front of them. David kept his voice low and told me we should not “do this here,” as if the humiliation belonged to me because I refused to disappear politely. I looked at the empty chair he had chosen for me between a cousin and someone from the groom’s side, and I realized something colder than anger. This was not spontaneous; he had thought about where Melissa would sit, and he had assumed I would move.
For twenty-eight years, I had been the woman who adjusted, explained, forgave, and made excuses when David forgot anniversaries, missed dinners, or put work ahead of family. When he became distant, I learned to expect less instead of asking for more, and somewhere along the way he mistook that patience for permission. Even now, part of me considered taking the other chair, smiling for photographs, swallowing the humiliation, and telling myself it was all for Emily. I actually reached for the chair because protecting my daughter still mattered more to me than winning a public fight.
Then I heard one word behind me: “Mom?” Emily was walking toward us in her wedding dress, still glowing from the ceremony, and at first she looked confused rather than angry. Her eyes moved from me, to the empty chair, to Melissa, then back to the family table where she had personally placed me months ago. David quickly stepped in and announced that he had “rearranged a few things,” as if changing the bride’s seating chart without permission were no more serious than moving a centerpiece.
Emily asked why I was not sitting in my seat, and David casually pointed to the neighboring table and said I would be sitting “right there.” Her smile disappeared, and her eyes dropped to the place card in front of Melissa. I watched my daughter’s expression go completely still as she picked up that card and turned it over in her hand. In that instant, I understood the worst part: Emily had not approved this, and David had brought his mistress into our daughter’s wedding believing he could force everyone to accept what he wanted once it was already done.
What Emily did not know was that six months earlier, I had discovered David’s affair through a message that appeared on his phone while he was in the shower. Melissa had written, “I hate pretending I don’t miss you when she’s around,” followed by another message asking whether Friday was still theirs. When I confronted him, David spent eleven minutes calling me paranoid, insecure, dramatic, suspicious, and unfair before I repeated Melissa’s words exactly. The silence that followed ended our marriage long before either of us ever said the word divorce.
We had kept the details quiet because Emily was planning her wedding, and I refused to turn her happiest season into a crisis about us. David told me he was “confused,” that what he had with Melissa was “more complicated than an affair,” and that he needed time before making decisions. I agreed only that Emily’s wedding came first, so we slept in separate rooms, spoke carefully, and tried to appear functional while our marriage quietly collapsed. I believed David understood that one day required restraint, but he had apparently used that silence to prepare something else.
Three weeks before the wedding, he had casually asked whether Emily had finalized the family table and whether every seat had been assigned. At the time, I thought it was harmless conversation, but standing there with Melissa’s card in my daughter’s hand, I finally understood why he had asked. He had been checking whether there would be room, and when there was not, he simply removed me. Emily looked up at her father and asked, very quietly, “Where is Mom’s place card?”—and for the first time that night, David had no easy answer.
…FULL STORY IN THE COMMENT 👇👇👇"" "
