Congress

Florida defends new congressional map, says it lacks ‘signs’ of partisan gerrymandering

Published

4 weeks ago

May 13, 2026

TALLAHASSEE, Florida — Florida is pushing back against assertions that the state’s new congressional map was drawn to help Republicans, arguing in a new legal filing that other states such as Virginia and Illinois have engaged in much more blatant partisan gerrymandering.

Voting rights and civil rights groups have filed multiple lawsuits challenging a new map pushed into law by GOP Gov. Ron DeSantis. They have argued that the map, which could result in Republicans picking up four seats, is a clear violation of voter approved anti-gerrymandering standards and “one of the most extreme congressional maps” enacted in the past 50 years.

A circuit court judge will hold a hearing Friday on whether to temporarily block the new map and instead let the state’s old congressional map — which was also recommended by the DeSantis administration back in 2022 — be used for the midterms. The 2022 map gave Republicans a 20-8 edge.

Lawyers representing the state filed their response Wednesdayand made several arguments — some of them procedural — as to why the new map should be allowed to remain in place. They argue, for example, that it’s too close to the August primary to undo the map approved just two weeks ago.

But the 29-page filing also insists those challenging the map have produced “scant evidence” to back their claims.

“The claim of partisan favoritism is tethered only to maps showing the district lines overlayed onto the results of a few elections, hearsay from their supposed experts, thoughts about tweets, their perspective on Fox News coverage, and a single factual representation from the governor’s map drawer,” the lawyers for the governor and state wrote.

They also asserted that “finally, on its face, Florida’s map lacks the telltale signs of a partisan gerrymander” and contrasted that with maps put in place in Democratic states that include “blue spaghetti” and “partisan thunderbolts.”

Florida’s “Fair Districts” standards prohibit redrawing congressional districts for partisan gain or to help or hurt an incumbent. Democrats and other critics have insisted the new map is “illegal” because it violates these standards. The map, for example, reconfigured districts in the Tampa Bay and Orlando area — including splitting off Hispanic voters that had been in the district now held by Democratic Rep. Darren Soto.

The Florida Legislature approved the new map in late April just days after the DeSantis administration submitted it to lawmakers after it was given first to Fox News. During a legislative hearing, a top aide to the governor acknowledged he relied on partisan data.

But in a legal memorandum, the governor’s general counsel argued the state no longer needs to follow “Fair Districts” because of a state Supreme Court ruling on another portion of the amendment. That argument is also in the state’s filing that calls “Fair Districts” unconstitutional.

“The danger is apparent: Allowing a law to stumble along after a court has excised some of its component parts undermines the entire legislative scheme,” states the filing. “The danger becomes more acute when confronting language — as here — adopted by citizen initiative.”

The state’s legal filing further contends a trial is needed first to establish where there is proof that the map was drawn for partisan gain. The state’s lawyers argue top aide Jason Poreda was never asked what types of partisan data he used or how it was used. They also dispute findings from experts about the potential outcomes of the new map.

President Donald Trump and the White House first started urging GOP-led states to engage in mid-decade redistricting last year. Shortly afterward, DeSantis began calling for changes in Florida’s map as well. He said that one South Florida district relied on racial considerations that were likely to be ruled unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court and the state’s population has grown in the past few years. The new map, however, still relies on the same Census data that was used in 2022.

Congress

Rick Scott lifts holds on Coast Guard promotions

Published

6 hours ago

June 11, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Sen. Rick Scott said Thursday he had lifted his hold on Coast Guard promotions as he works to resolve a dispute between the service branch and a shipbuilder in his state.

The Florida Republican said in a statement that he cares “deeply about these Coast Guard promotions” and that “though we’re still not done, I’m lifting these holds as all parties have been working together in good faith and are moving towards an amenable agreement that gets ships built and is fair to US taxpayers.”

Scott added that “the process still needs to be better” and that he would “fight to ensure there is more oversight and accountability of the Coast Guard and that we fix the Coast Guard procurement process going forward.”

Scott initially placed the hold in April on the elevation of officers within the service, preventing the Senate from approving promotions via unanimous consent.

Former Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem in 2025 scrapped plans for two advanced cutters being manufactured at Panama City-based Eastern Shipbuilding Group. The shipyard announced in November it would stop work on the two remaining boats “due to significant financial strain caused by the program’s structure and conditions.”

Scott had been a longtime booster of the partnership between Eastern and the Coast Guard and said in April he had been working with the administration to resolve the dispute but was struggling to get traction.

While the Senate could have held roll-call votes to sidestep Scott’s blockage, service officer promotions are usually noncontroversial and leaders rarely choose to expend valuable and finite floor time to advance them if there is not unanimous consent.

Congress

Senate panel approves Department of War name change

Published

7 hours ago

June 11, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

The Senate Armed Services Committee voted this week to formally change the Pentagon’s name to the Department of War, moving a significant step closer to solidifying President Donald Trump’s rebrand of the Defense Department as permanent.

The move came during the committee’s closed-door deliberations over its defense policy bill, according to Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), who announced the name change in explaining his vote against the legislation.

“It’s a juvenile move that sadly describes the reality of a president who has abandoned meaningful diplomacy in favor of starting doubtful wars in multiple locations and threatening even more,” he said in a statement.

Trump authorized the War Department moniker last year as part of a broader effort to present a more aggressive military to the world. The Pentagon has used it since, as have many Republicans on Capitol Hill.

But Congress must sign off for the name change to stick — and votes on both sides of the Capitol make it closer than ever to becoming a reality.

Details of the Armed Services vote, including who pushed for the change, were not immediately public. The committee voted 18-9 to advance the bill Wednesday evening and released initial details of the legislation Thursday.

The House Armed Services Committee approved the rebranding last week in its draft of the annual authorization legislation. The measure was adopted there in a narrow, party-line vote.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth quickly praised the decision. “The Department of War will officially be restored soon,” he wrote in a social media post after the House panel’s vote.

The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that a full renaming of the department could cost as much as $125 million. But supporters have argued changing the name would more accurately reflect the focus and strength of the department, sending a message to potential adversaries.

The name change’s inclusion in both the House and Senate panel’s drafts of the authorization bill — which has passed Congress annually for the last six decades — signals that the rebrand has a strong chance of becoming law.

Congress

Judge finds Lander not guilty in 26 Federal Plaza obstruction case

Published

7 hours ago

June 11, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

NEW YORK — A federal judge ruled Thursday that former New York City Comptroller Brad Lander is not guilty of misdemeanor obstruction for blocking an elevator while protesting outside an immigrant holding area.

Lander was hit with the obstruction charge last September while demonstrating in support of detained immigrants at 26 Federal Plaza in lower Manhattan. He was offered a deal to drop the charge but opted instead for a trial to bring attention to the federal government’s immigration policies.

Lander said he was there with state legislators to view the facility’s conditions, not to purposefully block an elevator — and that he would have moved if asked. In reading his findings, Judge Henry Ricardo described Lander’s testimony as consistent with video evidence, noting that his movements didn’t suggest he was purposefully trying to block the elevator and that Lander appeared “tired and a bit resigned.”

“No offense to Mr. Lander,” the judge said.

Lander — who entered the courtroom in good spirits and holding a Knicks hat — told reporters after the verdict: “I didn’t feel tired.”

“I felt an urgency to show up that day and try to fight what ICE is doing,” he said.

After a month’s delay, Lander finally had his first day in court Wednesday — less than two weeks before the primary election — bringing immigration even more to the forefront in the waning days of his campaign against Democratic Rep. Dan Goldman.

During the six-hour trial, Assistant U.S. Attorney Ariel Cohen framed it as a straightforward case — that it was well-documented Lander was sitting in front of an elevator and didn’t move after being told to do so multiple times.

Cohen pointed to Lander singing “We Shall Not Be Moved,” a well-known protest song popularized during the Civil Rights movement, while sitting in front of the elevator. But Ricardo was not swayed by that argument, reasoning that it was a chaotic moment and Lander was, in fact, moved, despite the song he was singing.

“Actions speak louder than words,” he said.

Ricardo said the government failed to prove Lander purposefully obstructed an elevator. He also said he didn’t weigh what was being protested or whether the protest was just — a stated goal for Lander in deciding to take the case to trial. Instead, Wednesday’s proceedings focused largely on elevator logistics and signage at 26 Federal Plaza, not the Trump administration’s immigration efforts.

“Do I wish that they had granted our discovery motions, sought harder to prove the case and given us the ability to hold ICE accountable? Yes, I wish that,” Lander said after the verdict.

Immigration policy has emerged as a flashpoint between Lander and Goldman, who is seeking a third term, especially as the Trump administration threatens to ramp up enforcement in the state.

Goldman, who often highlights his oversight visits at immigrant detention centers and his “triage center” to support detainees near 26 Federal Plaza, has repeatedly criticized Lander for his approach to immigration. On Wednesday, he referred to Lander’s case as “performative” and “self-promoting.” At a debate last week, Goldman chided him for the rhetorical refrain that he puts his “body on the line” for immigrants and for fundraising off of it.

“While Brad never did get the information he sought from ICE, I have all of that information from my weekly oversight visits and would be happy to brief him,” Goldman said in a statement.

Lander, who frequently conducts court watching shifts, was also arrested at 26 Federal Plaza while escorting migrants from immigration hearings last June, ahead of the mayoral primary. No charges were filed then. Lander on Thursday said he thinks the arrests are an effort “to intimidate people into not participating as part of that court watching, ICE watching movement.”

In response to a question about Goldman’s suggestion his actions are political theater, Lander claimed he wasn’t running for anything in September when he was arrested: “We were there to show up for our neighbors and the rule of law. This is much bigger than we are.”

When asked if the legal proceedings have been a distraction from his campaign, he said some of the most “meaningful work of the last year” has been “being part of a movement of Americans who are fighting back against the fascist White House and rogue ICE agents.”