Latest news with #VotingRights
CNN
21 hours ago
- Politics
- CNN
Louisiana redistricting: Supreme Court punts case until fall
The Supreme Court punted on Friday in a major legal challenge to Louisiana's long-litigated congressional map, taking the unusual step of holding the case over for a second term. The decision means the sprawling district that added a second Black and Democratic lawmaker to the state's overwhelmingly Republican delegation will remain in place, at least for the time being. The court said it will hear another set of arguments about the questions raised in the case in the term that begins this fall. Justice Clarence Thomas, a conservative, dissented from the decision to hold the appeal over until next term. Louisiana filed the appeal, arguing that it was caught in an impossible position: At first, a federal court ruled that the state had likely violated the Voting Rights Act by drawing only one majority Black district out of six. When the state sought to comply with that decision by drawing a second majority Black district, a group of self-described 'non-Black voters' sued, alleging the state violated the Constitution by relying too much on race to meet the first court's demands. 'Congress requires this court to exercise jurisdiction over constitutional challenges to congressional redistricting, and we accordingly have an obligation to resolve such challenges promptly,' Thomas wrote in his dissent. Thomas wrote that he would have held that the provision of the Voting Rights Act at issue in the case is unconstitutional. The Voting Rights Act requires that states not dilute the power of minority voters during the once-a-decade redistricting process, such as by 'packing' those voters into one district or 'cracking' neighborhoods of color up into many districts to spread out their influence. The law was enacted in response to decades of post-Civil War efforts – particularly in the South – to limit the political power of African Americans. And yet the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause demands that a state not draw a map predominantly based on race. If it does, it must demonstrate that it had a compelling reason to do so and carried out the effort in the narrowest way possible. Because of that inherent tension between the Voting Rights Act and the equal protection clause, the Supreme Court has tended to give states some 'breathing room' in drawing their maps. One of the central questions in the case, Louisiana v. Callais, was exactly how much room state lawmakers should have. The high court's conservative majority has grown increasingly skeptical of policies of any kind that, in the court's words, pick 'winners and losers' based on race. In the most notable example, a six-justice majority ended affirmative action in college admissions in 2023 – a decision the Trump administration has used to justify attempts to curb diversity, equity and inclusion programs in both the government and private sector. The Supreme Court has also in recent years chipped away at the power of the Voting Rights Act, including with a 2013 decision that ended the practice of requiring states with a history of racist policies to preclear changes to their voting rights laws with the Justice Department. But in a surprise decision a decade later, the high court went in the other direction, bolstering a key provision of the law by ordering Alabama to redraw its map to allow for an additional Black-majority district. Chief Justice John Roberts, a conservative, penned the opinion for a 5-4 majority, siding with the court's three liberals. Another conservative, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, agreed with the key parts of the decision. Part of what was at issue in the Louisiana case is whether race 'predominated' the redistricting process. The plaintiffs said Louisiana lawmakers were entirely focused on race in the redrawing. State officials have said that, while they were responding to the first court's order about a second Black district, they also were focused mainly on politics – specifically a desire to draw the boundaries in a way that would retain incumbents, including House Speaker Mike Johnson. The Louisiana district the state drew slashes diagonally for some 250 miles from Shreveport in the northwest of the state to Baton Rouge in the southeast to create a district where Black residents make up some 54% of voters – up from about 24% under the old lines. During oral arguments in March, Roberts described it as a 'snake that runs from one end of the state to the other.' Rep. Cleo Fields, a Democrat, won the seat in last year's election – adding a second Democrat to the state's delegation. The Biden administration submitted a brief to the Supreme Court that technically supported neither party but urged the justices to reverse a special three-judge district court that would throw out the current map. Days after taking office, the Trump administration submitted a letter declaring that it had 'reconsidered the government's position' and that the earlier brief 'no longer represents the position of the United States.'
Washington Post
21 hours ago
- Politics
- Washington Post
Supreme Court to rehear case over Louisiana's second majority-Black district
The Supreme Court on Friday put off deciding whether to uphold a Louisiana map that added a second majority-Black congressional district in the state, saying it would rehear the case in its next term. States must thread a needle when drawing electoral districts. The landmark Voting Rights Act allows states to consider race as a means to redress discriminatory electoral practices. But maps that are explicitly based on race violate the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, which requires all people to be treated equally.
Yahoo
17-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Federal judge to consider revival of Virginia Beach election lawsuit
VIRGINIA BEACH — A federal lawsuit that led the city to change to its election system is once again in play as Virginia Beach prepares to hold a referendum vote on how it elects its City Council and School Board members. On Monday, Judge Raymond Jackson, of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, rescinded his previous dismissal of the Holloway v. City of Virginia Beach case and plans to issue a memorandum and opinion on the matter later this week. Two Virginia Beach residents – Latasha Holloway and Georgia Allen — sued the city in 2017, challenging the all at-large election system used to elect members of the City Council. Jackson ruled in 2021 that the system 'denies Hispanics, African Americans and Asians equal access to the electoral and political process,' violating the federal 1965 Voting Rights Act. After that, the city began using a district-based electoral system that did away with all at-large seats except the mayor. Jackson's ruling on the lawsuit comes as several well-connected business and community associations have pushed the idea of restoring some at-large seats on the council, and city lawmakers voted last month to include the question on a November ballot referendum. Deputy City Attorney Christopher Boynton confirmed in an email Monday afternoon that Jackson's ruling has set the stage for the case to be reopened. 'The court vacated the prior dismissal order in the former Holloway case upon plaintiffs' motion and is allowing the plaintiffs to file an Amended Complaint asserting whatever claims they believe are currently meritorious,' Boynton said. Virginia Beach will vote on filling borrow pit with dredged material on Tuesday Portsmouth sheriff declines to expand existing partnership with ICE Here's the team responsible for keeping Virginia Beach resort area in tip-top shape Virginia Beach police threaten legal action against 'pop-up' events next week Violent crime up but overall crime down as Portsmouth police earn national accreditation Virginia Beach appealed Jackson's initial ruling in 2021. While awaiting the court's opinion, the city implemented 10 single-member districts, including three districts where minority voters formed a majority of the voting population. In July 2022, the Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled the case was moot because Virginia's General Assembly had already passed a law, HB2198, eliminating at-large voting for most of the seats on the City Council. Jackson later dismissed Holloway's case but allowed for it to be brought back. 'The former dismissal was a voluntary, non-prejudicial dismissal so they didn't waive any rights at the time by agreeing to the dismissal,' Boynton said. Jackson's decision on Monday to rescind the voluntary dismissal allows Holloway to challenge a potential hybrid election system, Holloway's attorney Simone Leeper wrote in an email. 'Plaintiffs now will have the opportunity to amend their complaint to challenge the 7-3-1 system currently reflected in the City Charter as amended by HB2198,' Leeper said, referencing a system that includes seven district seats, three at-large seats, and the mayor. Under the current '10-1' system, the mayor is elected by residents across the city, but the 10 council members are elected only by residents in their district. Virginia Beach has used the district-based election system since 2022, and the City Council formally adopted a redistricting plan in 2023 that authorized the use of the system. However, the city charter doesn't yet align with it, and previous efforts to enshrine the 10-1 system into law have been held up because of legal challenges. In May, seven of 11 council members voted in favor of a charter change referendum on the election system to be placed on the November ballot to gauge the public's interest in keeping the 10-1 system. The referendum question will ask voters whether they want to keep the current single-member district system or if they support a system with some at-large seats on council. In a motion filed in April seeking to reopen the lawsuit, Holloway's attorneys cited the referendum. They argued action was necessary 'because the City is no longer fulfilling its representation to this Court to take all steps necessary to maintain a 10-1 system and is actively seeking to evade this Court's jurisdiction over any claim by the Holloway Plaintiffs that implementing the 7-3-1 system would violate Section 2 of the federal Voting Rights Act ('VRA').' The referendum could open the door to a modified 7-3-1 system, in which three council members would serve in at-large seats and all residents could vote for them. Under that system, the remaining seven members would be elected by residents only in their district. In 2023, the city's legal team warned Virginia Beach could face renewed litigation in federal court if it chooses not to stick with the current ward-based election system. Stacy Parker, 757-222-5125,
The Independent
13-06-2025
- Politics
- The Independent
Nevada GOP governor vetoes voter ID bill that he pushed for in a deal with Democrats
Republican Gov. Joe Lombardo unexpectedly vetoed a bill on Thursday that would have required voters in the swing state to show a photo ID at the polls — a conservative priority across the country and something that has long been on the governor's legislative wish list. The move brings a dramatic end to one of the legislative session's most surprising outcomes: A bipartisan deal that combined the requirement for voter identification with a Democratic-backed measure to add more drop boxes for mail ballots that Lombardo had initially vetoed. The bill came together in the final days of the session and passed mere minutes before the Democratic-controlled Legislature adjourned on June 3. Lombardo had been expected to sign it. The voter ID requirements in the bill mirrored a ballot initiative that Nevada voters overwhelmingly approved last November. But voters would have to pass it again in 2026 to amend the state constitution. The requirement would then be in place by 2028. Assembly Speaker Steve Yeager, the Democrat who brokered the deal with Lombardo, said when he introduced the legislation that voters seemed poised to give the final approval, and that enacting a voter ID law would have given the state a head start on ensuring a smooth rollout before the next presidential election. The Associated Press sent phone messages Thursday seeking comment from both Lombardo's spokespeople and Yeager. Voting rights groups condemned the legislation, saying it would have made it harder for some people to vote, including low-income or unhoused voters, people with disabilities and older voters. Barbara Wells, president of the League of Women Voters of Nevada, said the voter ID portion of the bill would "not allow their voices to be heard.' 'In Nevada, security throughout the voting process is so watertight that any deception is extremely rare, yet those who pushed for this bill would have the residents of our state believe otherwise,' Wells said, adding that while it 'was touted as a preventative or cure for voter fraud, it will create significant difficulties for many hard-working Nevadans.' Lombardo on Thursday also vetoed a bill that would have allowed the swing state's nonpartisan voters to cast ballots in Republican or Democratic primary races.
Fox News
10-06-2025
- Politics
- Fox News
148 Democrats back noncitizen voting in DC as GOP raises alarm about foreign agents
The majority of House Democrats voted in favor of allowing non-citizens to participate in Washington, D.C. elections on Tuesday. The House of Representatives passed on a bill led by Rep. August Pfluger, R-Texas, to prohibit non-U.S. citizens from voting in elections in the nation's capital. It passed 266 to 148, with 56 Democrats joining Republicans in passing the measure. One Democrat voted "present," while 148 voted against the bill. "I believe strongly in not having federal overreach, but we have jurisdiction, Congress has jurisdiction over Washington, District of Columbia…and we don't like to utilize our jurisdiction and our authority, but in this case, they've gone too far," Pfluger told Fox News Digital in an interview before the vote. D.C.'s progressive city council passed the Local Resident Voting Rights Amendment Act in 2022, granting non-U.S. citizens the ability to vote in local elections if they've lived in the district for at least 30 days. Non-citizens can also hold local elected office in the D.C. government. The local measure has been a frequent target of GOP attacks, with Republican national security hawks raising alarms about the possibility of hostile foreign agents participating in D.C. elections. But progressive Democrats like Rep. Maxwell Frost, D-Fla., who spoke out against the bill on Tuesday afternoon, have dismissed that as an implausible scenario. "Republicans claim that Congress has a constitutional duty to legislate on local D.C. matters, but this is historically and legally incorrect. Republicans legislate on local D.C. matters only when they think they can score political points, such as by demonizing immigrants," Frost said during debate on the House floor. "They only bring it up to the floor when they think they can score political points, taking away the democratic rights of people here in D.C. and home rule." Frost also argued that it was "highly unlikely" foreign officials would vote in those elections, claiming they would have to "renounce their right to vote in their home country" and because "DC has no authority in federal matters." But Pfluger, who spoke with Fox News Digital before the vote, was optimistic that it would get at least some Democratic support. He noted that 52 Democrats voted for the bill when it passed the House in the previous Congress. It was never taken up in the formerly Democrat-controlled Senate, however. "It's hard to go back to your district as a Democrat and say, yeah, I want foreign agents to be able to vote in our elections – 'Oh yeah, it's not federal elections,' some may say. But it has an impact on the way the city is run," Pfluger said. "This could be Russian embassy personnel, they could be Chinese embassy personnel – a number of folks. It's just wrong. It goes against the fabric of our society," he added. Another bill receiving a vote on Tuesday is legislation that would grant D.C. police the ability to negotiate punishments via collective bargaining, and would help shield the capital's police force from at least some liability by installing a statute of limitations against the Metropolitan Police Department. That legislation was introduced by Rep. Andrew Garbarino, R-N.Y.
