Are Democrats coming back next week in person. >> Yes. And our view is that, you know, we're ready, we're willing, we're able to sit down with anyone, anytime, any place, you know, either on the Hill or back at the White House to reopen the government to enact a bipartisan spending agreement.But that spending agreement, as we've repeatedly said, has to actually make life better for the American people, not worse. And of course, it has to decisively address the Republican healthcare crisis, crushing people a ...

The justices are weighing whether to gut the Voting Rights Act https://t.co/bD4gj19UME ...

So, President Trump now says he might show up in person to watch the Supreme Court argue his authority to set sweeping tariffs. A decision from the justices could overturn lower court rulings which found the president has no legal authority to impose countryspecific tariffs from earlier this year. Trump calls it one of the most important cases ever brought.So, joining me now to talk about it, former US attorney and host of the Talking Feds podcast, our friend Harry Litman. Harry, what is your reaction to Tr ...

One of the crown jewels of civil rights of the civil rights movement is the voting rights act. It was signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson while uh surrounded by civil rights leaders like Martin Luther King, the late congressman John Lewis and many others.It happened in 1965. It transformed American politics. At the time, Johnson called it a triumph for freedom as huge as any victory won on any battlefield.It was a step toward making good on the promise of the constitutional guarantees that were o ...

There is growing fear that the Supreme Court's conservative majority could make it easier for states to get away with racial discrimination in voting. The high court heard oral arguments on Wednesday in Louisiana versus Clay, which enters on, excuse me, which centers on section two of the Voting Rights Act. It protects minority voters from discrimination and those who defend the provision, argue that if it no longer stands, the consequences could be devastating.Take a listen. were um section two to cease to ...

Legal & Political Analysis - The Supreme Court's conservatives are likely to use the Equal Protection Clause to weaken the Voting Rights Act [1] - This action is perceived as undermining the law and damaging the court's credibility [1]

Electoral Landscape & Political Strategy - Republicans could potentially gain up to 19 congressional seats through redrawing maps, giving them a built-in advantage [1][2] - The report highlights Republican efforts to undermine Democratic checks on power through redistricting in states like Missouri [3][4][5] - The analysis contrasts Republican redistricting tactics with those of Democrats in California, who embrace voter approval [6][7][8] Voting Rights & Election Integrity - The report suggests Republicans are attempting to disenfranchise voters through new maps and restrictions on mail-in ballots [8][9][10] - Concerns are raised about potential overt control of elections, including the deployment of troops to cities [11][12] - The report expresses concern that Trump and his party are willing to deny voters their democratic representation to hold onto power [13]

Voting Rights Act & Supreme Court - The Supreme Court is considering a case that could significantly weaken the Voting Rights Act, potentially leading to altered voting maps, particularly in the South [1] - A court ruling could result in Republicans gaining up to 19 House seats [2] - The Supreme Court may allow states to gerrymander black communities, potentially eliminating Democratic seats protected by the Voting Rights Act [3] - A Supreme Court decision is expected next summer, potentially impacting voting maps in the 2026 and 2028 elections [4][5] Political Implications - Gutting the Voting Rights Act combined with partisan gerrymandering could lead to a more polarized country [14] - The current situation is described as a partisan power grab influenced by Donald Trump [10] - Some argue the Supreme Court's stance sends a message that white supremacy can persist in a toned-down form [8] - The Supreme Court's stance is inconsistent, as it allows race to be considered in some contexts (e g, ICE arrests) but not in ensuring fair voting representation [18][19] Potential Solutions & Challenges - Redistricting reform is needed, but blue states are passing reforms while red states are taking a maximalist approach [22] - A constitutional amendment may be necessary to address structural problems related to Citizens United and redistricting [24] - Achieving a constitutional amendment is challenging, even on issues with broad bipartisan support [25][27]

From @WSJopinion: When the Voting Rights Act is used to reduce Hispanic numbers in a district and to disenfranchise a sitting Hispanic legislator for not being from the right party, we know that the law is being abused, writes @nikkitorres509 https://t.co/VqOhdwuiW3 ...

Legal & Regulatory Landscape - The Supreme Court is considering weakening Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which prohibits discriminatory voting practices based on race [1] - The court's conservative majority seems open to barring the use of race in redistricting [2] - A color-blind interpretation of the law has been embraced by the Supreme Court before, notably striking down affirmative action in college admissions [4] Potential Impact of Court Decision - Weakening Section 2 could lead to a resurgence of discrimination in voting practices [7] - Gutting Section 2 could overturn the court's own precedent issued two years ago in a similar Alabama case [10] - If lawmakers can no longer consider race in drawing districts, it will have a severe impact on democracy and voters, potentially suppressing the right to vote [12] Voting Rights Act & Redistricting - Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act aims to ensure all Americans can fully participate in the electoral process [9] - Section 2 plays a deterrent effect against discrimination in voting [7] - The Voting Rights Act was adopted in 1965 to address states using race to exclude African-Americans from electoral politics [7]