Politics

Poll: Democrats want to beat the GOP — even if that means fewer Black districts

Published

2 months ago

May 14, 2026

A lot of Democrats are willing to sacrifice Black voting power to beat the GOP.

In the two weeks since the Supreme Court significantly narrowed a key provision of the Voting Rights Act, Republicans have kicked off a fresh round of redistricting across the South. Their aim is to dismantle majority-minority districts, which they’ve long argued are unconstitutional, and to try to keep control of the House.

New results from The POLITICO Poll show many Democrats want their party leaders to fight back hard — even if it means breaking up districts designed to protect the power of Black voters and other minority communities.

In theory, Democrats want to keep those districts intact. When given no context on the recent Supreme Court decision, a 54 percent majority of people who voted for former Vice President Kamala Harris in 2024 say it is more important to protect the voting power of Black voters and other minorities, even if it means Democrats draw fewer seats.

But that number changes significantly when the question is asked in the context of the Supreme Court ruling and Republican gerrymandering — and a 45 percent plurality instead say that Democrats must counter GOP efforts, “even if it means reducing the number of majority-minority districts.”

Taken together, the poll results reveal that Republicans’ aggressive redistricting is testing Democrats’ appetite for a maximalist posture in response — and so far, many appear willing to embrace it to win the House. They’re even willing to throw away traditional liberal principles such as boosting the electoral power of voters of color in an effort to fight fire with fire.

“Do I think you should do all of these carve outs? No. But do I think what we’ve just witnessed should have happened? No. Do I think that the Supreme Court should have come down with Callais? No,” said Rep. Sydney Kamlager-Dove (D-Calif.). “At some point you do have to stop and say, ‘This is madness, and all this is doing is unraveling democracy.’”

But Democrats’ conversations “probably will have to” involve carving up majority-minority districts, said Kamlager-Dove. “It’s existential at this point, and this is a larger battle that we’re fighting for.”

It’s a stunning admission from a Black lawmaker who represents a majority-Hispanic Los Angeles district: Defeating Republicans might be more important than protecting districts like hers.

And it’s a real possibility the party would have to deploy the tactic if it hopes to stand a chance against the most aggressive Republican gerrymandering possible. To draw House seats with the best margins for the party — especially in states like Illinois and New York — district lines would likely need to be altered in a way that packs large numbers of Black voters into red-leaning areas in order to make them bluer.

It’s not just a few Democrats switching their minds. Consider the Harris voters who initially say they would protect majority-minority districts: When asked about countering the GOP, they split roughly evenly, with 46 percent saying it’s more important to draw more blue seats and 41 percent saying the majority-minority districts should be kept together.

The survey, conducted by Public First, sheds new light on an emerging front in the gerrymandering war that has spread across the nation. At least nine states will use new maps this fall, with others still weighing last-minute gerrymandering before the midterms. Many more are debating doing so in the lead up to 2028, as mapmaking rapidly becomes a top priority for both parties.

The poll suggests people of color are more willing to accept the trade-off of having fewer majority-minority districts if it means beating Republicans, though margins of error are higher with the smaller sample sizes for this group.

Pluralities of Black (42 percent), Hispanic (45 percent) and Asian American (48 percent) voters who either identified as Democrats or voted for Harris in 2024 — say it is more important to draw more blue seats, even if it means reducing the number of majority-minority districts. White Democrats and Harris voters appeared slightly less likely to support carving up the districts, with 39 percent supporting such a response, 33 percent opposing it and 28 percent unsure.

Some Democratic leaders reject that drawing politically beneficial maps and preserving majority-minority districts are mutually exclusive.

“As the person that draws the maps and stares at the data, I’m telling you that is not a binary choice,” said John Bisognano, the president of the National Democratic Redistricting Committee.

“The Democratic Party has always basically been able to win elections, ensure that we are able to be in power in different states because of Black voters,” California Assemblymember Mia Bonta, a Democrat who’s also a Black Latina, said during a news conference. As Democrats push for more aggressive gerrymanders, she said, the party must guarantee “we do not forget and do not disregard the importance of making sure that Black voters are at the center of that.”

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, who is ratcheting up pressure on his colleagues to redraw maps ahead of 2028, told Blue Light News that the maps in California and Virginia show a “model for moving forward that won’t result in the dilution of Black representation.”

Meanwhile, Republicans are eager to amplify the Democratic divisions over mapmaking, as the party continues to go all-in on drawing favorable House districts in an effort to shore up the party’s razor-thin House majority.

“Those numbers seem to suggest there’s not a unified position on the path forward for Democrats on this issue,” said Adam Kincaid, president of the National Republican Redistricting Trust. “I think it shows a split in their coalition, and they’re going to need to have everybody on board in order to be successful in repealing or changing these redistricting commissions over the next couple years.”

Blue Light News’s Calen Razor and Lindsey Holden contributed to this report.

Politics

When a World Cup exit becomes a political crisis

Published

2 hours ago

July 3, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Many of the countries that failed to advance in the World Cup are seeing the normal cycle of accountability: angry fans, finger-pointing media, fired coaches. Uruguay’s sports officials have gone further, reportedly cancelling a team charter plane and making players take commercial flights home as a form of punishment. In Turkey, where a stunning crash-out was greeted with rage from many fans, the nation’s football boss has asked the justice minister to imprison citizens who criticize the team.

Yet nowhere have the political recriminations gone further than in South Korea, where the president has called on the Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism to investigate the country’s failure to advance to the round of 32, one of South Korea’s most disappointing World Cup campaigns in decades.

“I feel not just confusion but utter bewilderment at this unexpected outcome,” President Lee Jae Myung wrote on X on Sunday. “I am deeply sorry for causing such profound disappointment to the public over this absurd affair. We will swiftly push forward with reforms to sports administration to ensure such a thing never happens again.”

The issue at hand is clear, according to Lee’s post: “When favoritism and cronyism take precedence over competence in selecting a commander, the result is as predictable as fire burning paper,” he wrote — pointing back to head coach Hong Myung-bo’s controversial appointment in July 2024.

The selection of Hong sparked speculation about favoritism because the Korea Football Association abruptly selected him after months of pursuing foreign candidates. Critics questioned the transparency of the hiring process, and a government audit later found that the KFA had violated several of its own hiring procedures, fueling allegations of preferential treatment. The audit, however, did not conclude that Hong himself had acted improperly, and Hong himself denied receiving special treatment.

Ultimately, Hong remained as head coach because the authorities concluded that while the appointment process was procedurally flawed, there was no legal basis to cancel his contract. But it explains why the public’s criticism against their national soccer team has been so concentrated on the coach, whom many view as an illegitimate appointment. Hong has already announced his resignation, but that hasn’t soothed the ire of Korean fans. Many believe that the results would have been different if a coach had been selected through a proper hiring process — and it seems the president may believe so as well.

While the political repercussions of South Korea’s team losing may seem shocking, it isn’t an unreasonable overstep: Public funds account for about 30 percent of KFA’s budget. In addition, one of the defining goals of Lee’s presidency has been to strengthen transparency and accountability in both private and public sectors, which is why the opaque procedures of KFA were more likely to catch the administration’s eye. Despite Korea’s political divisions, lawmakers from across the political spectrum have voiced their common desire to reform KFA.

While South Korea is the most far-reaching example of political fallout from a World Cup exit, it is not the only country where politicians have become involved in the messy aftermath. In Turkey, football federation president İbrahim Hacıosmanoğlu reportedly called on Justice Minister Yılmaz Tunç to prosecute fans who insulted the national team following its elimination.

The incident also came after the national team’s official account shared a promotional video from President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s ruling Justice and Development Party, prompting accusations that the federation had blurred the line between sport and politics. The team’s elimination only deepened that political entanglement.

The two cases reflect different understandings of accountability, but with one common denominator: the belief that the World Cup is more than just a run-of-the-mill sporting event.

Politics

The European sports host with the most

Published

2 hours ago

July 3, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Switzerland is busy selling itself as a premier venue for international sports competitions — and the government is throwing its weight behind the effort.

In June, Bern backed plans to fund international sports competitions from 2027 to 2029, and two weeks ago, it approved $247 million in funding for the 2038 Winter Olympics, which it is moving toward securing the right to host.

Ruth Metzler-Arnold, president of Switzerland’s Olympic committee, said at the time that the 2038 bid “is bringing everyone together behind a concerted vision that will bolster Swiss sport in the long run and inspire generations to come.”

Switzerland already has a sizable sporting footprint. Many international sports organizations — including FIFA, the International Olympic Committee, European football governing body UEFA and the Union Cycliste Internationale — are already headquartered in the Alpine country.

In early June, the Swiss approved more than a million dollars each to support the 2027 World Rowing Championships in Lucerne and the 2028 European men’s Handball Championships in Zurich. Government money will also flow to swimming, figure skating, basketball and bobsled championships.

Switzerland is currently in a “privileged dialogue” with the IOC over its 2038 Winter Games bid, meaning that it holds exclusive rights to organize a bid until the end of next year. Karl Stoss, the chair of the IOC’s Future Host Commission ‌for the Olympic Winter Games, said in February that a host election could happen as soon as April 2027.

On the soccer field, Switzerland hosted the 2025 Women’s European Championship and co-hosted the 2008 men’s European Championship. Progress in its long-shot 2026 World Cup campaign — which continues tonight in Vancouver against Algeria — will only bolster Switzerland’s sports credentials.