Connect with us

The Dictatorship

Republicans are suddenly having some regrets over the redistricting war

Published

on

Ten months after President Donald Trump pressed Texas Republicans to redraw their congressional map to help secure more GOP seats in the midterm elections, the nationwide redistricting war could end up yielding either a small GOP advantage or, as it stands now, a small Democratic gain.

With Virginia voters opting to redraw their map Tuesday, Democrats are on course to pick up four seats in the commonwealth, as long as the map survives legal challenges. A circuit judge on Wednesday blocked the state from certifying the congressional map, ruling that the voter referendum was unconstitutional.

Virginia’s Democratic Attorney General Jay Jones has already vowed to file an appeal.

While the new map will have to survive legal challenges, Democrats may have mitigated the impact of GOP gains in other states that redrew their maps, such as Texas, North Carolina and Ohio, when you add in Democratic pickups in California from its new map.

The whole exercise raises an important question: Was this push to redraw maps in the middle of the decennial process really worth it?

When MS NOW asked Rep. Richard Hudson, R-N.C., chair of the House GOP’s campaign arm, that question, he did not exactly offer a ringing endorsement of the redistricting war.

“Not for me to decide that,” Hudson said. “Wasn’t my decision.”

Other Republicans were decidedly more blunt, with some suggesting they wished Republicans had not started this fight.

Rep. Pete Sessions, R-Texas, the former head of the National Republican Congressional Committee, made it clear he was not thrilled to see his state shake up its map, telling MS NOW, “No one cared to listen to the delegation.”

Asked if he wished the president had not requested that Texas redraw its map given what followed, Sessions left it at, “The president will live with the results.”

And Rep. Jay Obernolte, R-Calif., told Politico on Wednesday, “It was a mistake to go down this road.”

“The problem is, at the end of the day, whatever party wins, we all have to govern,” he said. “It’s harder to do when we’ve eroded our constituents’ trust in our democracy and the fairness of our elections — which is what mid-cycle redistricting does.”

The national redistricting fight began last summer, when Trump demanded Republicans in the Texas Statehouse redraw their congressional lines to help pick up an additional five seats in the House — in a pinkish state where the map was already gerrymandered in the GOP’s favor, 25-13. Republicans in Texas eventually complied with the president’s demands, drawing a map where the intended breakdown is 30-8, in a state where former Vice President Kamala Harris won 42% of the vote in 2024.

California, where the map was already gerrymandered in Democrats’ favor, 43-9, decided to retaliate. After putting the question to voters, the state voted to redraw the map further in Democrats’ favor, with the intention of picking up another five seats. Soon after, other states got into the game, looking to undo the effect of California’s redistricting effort. But on Tuesday, Virginia Democrats succeeded in passing a voter referendum to redraw its lines, with the intended breakdown being 10 Democratic House seats and one Republican.

While Florida may still get in on the battle and functionally give Republicans a slight advantage on the mid-decade redistricting battle, Democrats appear to be winning the gerrymandering game — at least for the moment. And that fact has vulnerable Republicans wondering whether either party should have gone down this road.

Rep. Mike Lawler, R-N.Y., told MS NOW he does not believe “this tit-for-tat is especially beneficial to anybody in the end.”

“When everything is said and done, it’ll probably be a net wash,” he said.

Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick, R-Pa., argued the math of which party comes out ahead is “irrelevant,” because mid-decade redistricting like this is “terrible policy.”

“We should be un-gerrymandering every district, not gerrymandering every district in America,” he said. “It’s crazy.”

And Senate Minority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said these are the “kinds of outcomes you’re going to run into” when “you go down the path of starting to do these things mid-decade.”

“States are, depending on who’s in power, going to try and work the maps to their advantage,” he said.

Some Republicans shied away from casting any blame on the president for setting this gerrymandering battle in motion.

Instead, many accused Democrats of starting this fight — specifically pointing to a previous redistricting feud in New York during the 2022 and 2024 elections cycles.

Rep. John McGuire, R-Va., who called the results of Tuesday’s election in Virginia “illegal and unconstitutional,” told MS NOW, “It did not start in Texas. It started in New York, by Democrats.”

Lawler echoed that sentiment, arguing that because the 2022 congressional map in New York “wasn’t good enough” for Democratic leaders, “they filed a lawsuit, came back, and won four seats as a result” in 2024.

Many of the lessons either party will learn from this exercise will depend on Florida, where state lawmakers are set to meet next week to consider their potential new map. But illustrating the unease among Republicans about redistricting, not all GOP lawmakers in the Florida delegation are cheering on an effort to squeeze out more Republican seats, which could weaken a number of their districts and leave many susceptible to a Democratic challenger — particularly in a wave election.

Rep. Maria Salazar, R-Fla., who represents parts of Miami, said she likes her current district as it is.

“I think I’m doing well,” she said. “I’m representing them well, I think.”

But she remained deferential to Gov. Ron DeSantis, R-Fla.

“If the governor of the state of Florida and the legislature believes differently, who am I to say?” she said.

Still, in an interview with Politico last month, Rep. Greg Steube, R-Fla., urged caution.

“I think the legislature needs to be very cognizant of the fact that if they get too aggressive,” he said, “you could put incumbent members at risk.”

Earlier this week, Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., was asked by known what he thought of the redistricting war. Issa, a longtime Republican who decided not to run in 2018 as a blue wave gathered over the midterms during Trump’s first term, came back to Congress in 2021.

With his purple-ish district turned blue during this latest redistricting, Issa is one of the GOP casualties of the gerrymandering war. He looked at running in Texas, in one of the new districts Republicans had drawn, but ultimately decided he would not seek another term in Congress.

“There’s the obvious question of, is it ever a mistake to start a war?” Issa said Tuesday before the Virginia vote. “I don’t know.”

For their part, Congressional Democrats have dismissed Republican complaints that the 10 to 1 map in Virginia is unfair — even as some grapple with their own disdain for gerrymandering.

Rep. James Walkinshaw, D-Va., who backed the creation of a bipartisan redistricting commission in Virginia in 2020told MS NOW he has reached the conclusion that the GOP is “only going to join us in supporting non-partisan redistricting when they learn that — best case — they’re going to fight to a draw.”

So far, Walkinshaw said, Republicans have concluded that “gerrymandering is in their interest politically, that’s why they oppose our national ban on partisan gerrymandering. We’ve got to show them that it’s no longer in their interest.”

And Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s, D-N.Y., reaction to the GOP complaints was to mimic a baby.

“Wah wah wah,” she said.

“Democrats have attempted and asked Republicans for 10 years to ban partisan gerrymandering, and for 10 years, Republicans have said no,” Ocasio-Cortez said. “Republicans have fought for partisan gerrymanders across the United States of America, and these are the rules that they have set.”

Jack Fitzpatrick and Nora McKee contributed to this report.

Kevin Frey is a congressional reporter for MS NOW.

Read More

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

The Dictatorship

What the DOJ’s Southern Poverty Law Center indictment is really about

Published

on

ByMichael Edison Hayden

As one of the most high-profile employees of the Southern Poverty Law Center for five years — and as someone who has been outspokenly critical of the organization — I never once heard of the program that allegedly involved paying sources within the Ku Klux Klan, National Alliance and Aryan Nations until the Justice Department published its indictment this week.

What I did hear, frequently, was people in the MAGA movement saying we were some kind of criminal syndicate — part of a sustained propaganda effort to delegitimize the work we did tracking and labeling extremist groups.

Although I find the notion of paying extremists distasteful, even unethical, the indictment feels like the culmination of years of pro-Trump activists consuming and amplifying that kind of propaganda. And, the SPLC, for its part, has called these charges “false allegations.”

One quote from acting Attorney General Todd Blanche’s press conference about the charges against the SPLC stood out to me as particularly absurd:

“The SPLC is manufacturing racism to justify its existence,” he said on Tuesday afternoon.

Imagine, for a moment, believing the SPLC — or any other civil rights organization — needed to fraudulently manufacture racism to sell it in today’s America. Just two months ago, the president shared an artificial intelligence-generated video depicting his Black predecessor and his predecessor’s Black wife as primates. In early 2025, the Trump administration suspended refugee admissions from majority non-white countries while investing in a special program to fast-track white South African Afrikaners into the United States. Racism is not a rare commodity in this country to be manufactured — it’s cheap and easy to find.

A closer look at the indictment raises more red flags. For one, the KKK, National Alliance and Aryan Nations have been largely defanged for years. You rarely hear those names now unless you’re a historian focused on the white supremacist movement. That doesn’t rule out the possibility of criminal wrongdoing on its own, but it does show that this DOJ, in 2026, had to reach back as far as 2013 to find a relatively obscure SPLC program — one that, as a former spokesperson, I had never even heard of.

Another issue is the indictment’s suggestion that the SPLC played a role in planning the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, based on the claim that an informant was “part of a leadership group.” The idea that an informant could have planted the seed for a gathering of white supremacists of that magnitude is completely implausible. We don’t need to speculate about the origins of that deadly event: Unite the Right was effectively a sequel to a similar rally in Charlottesville in May 2017, driven by widespread outrage within the movement over the removal of Confederate statues. Unicorn Riot preserved reams of Discord logs attesting to it.

The indictment feels like the culmination of years of pro-Trump activists consuming and amplifying that kind of propaganda.

So, leaving open the possibility that something comes out in the trial that I don’t know about yet, these charges look like a piece of political theater to shore up a wayward MAGA base beleaguered by the scandal around Jeffrey Epstein and an increasingly unwieldy debacle in Iran. It’s a MAGA base that understands the SPLC as one of the primary villains in its propaganda stories and enjoys seeing it suffer.

But if the DOJ argues that paying informants furthers hate, and that this makes the use of paid informants fraudulent, won’t the SPLC’s lawyers simply demonstrate how those efforts contributed to these groups no longer being around? If the SPLC propped up the National Alliance to defraud donors, why is it essentially defunct? Why does the once robust Aryan Nations group no longer exist?

If you’ve read this far and assumed I have an incentive to support my former employer, I don’t. I have a different life now — with a book out, a podcast and teaching. After producing some of the SPLC’s more notable investigative stories from 2018 to 2023, I’ve repeatedly criticized them in media appearances.

As chronicled in my book, “Strange People on the Hill,” the SPLC settled with me out of court after I raised allegations of racial discrimination and union busting against them. I have also publicly accused the organization of deliberately taking a lower profile during President Donald Trump’s second term — hoping to evade the kind of targeting that is befalling it now. The SPLC has done many things over the years, good and bad. It has been invaluable in tracing how MAGA brought fringe racist ideas into the mainstream conservative movement. It has also been clumsy, reactionary and, at times, foolish. This program involving paid informants may indeed be one of those clumsy and foolish chapters.

But to understand why a weaponized DOJ might choose this particular case amid all of the white-collar crimes it isn’t pursuing in America today, you first need to understand the narrative that’s been built around the SPLC for years — and how useful it has become to the corrupt men who run this country.

Michael Edison Hayden

Michael Edison Hayden is a leading expert on far-right extremism in the United States. His debut book, “Strange People on Blue Light News”— a chronicle of a West Virginia town in the five years following a white nationalist group’s purchase of a local castle — will be published by Bold Type Books/Hachette on April 7, 2026. Hayden also co-hosts the podcast, “Posting Through It,” with new episodes released every Monday and Thursday.

Read More

Continue Reading

The Dictatorship

Judge temporarily strikes down Virginia’s redistricting referendum

Published

on

Judge temporarily strikes down Virginia’s redistricting referendum

A Virginia judge on Wednesday blocked the certification of a redistricting referendum that allows the state to redraw its congressional and legislative maps, less than 24 hours after voters approved the measure.

The rulingissued by Tazewell County Circuit Court, halts state officials from finalizing the results of the ballot measure, which sought to overhaul Virginia’s redistricting process.

This latest move prevents the Virginia Department of Elections and other officials from implementing the new redistricting referendum unless it is overturned by a higher court.

Other states attempting similar redistricting moves have faced lengthy legal battlesleaving the ultimate outcome uncertain.

Tazewell County Circuit Court Judge Jack Hurley ruled Wednesday that the redistricting referendum violated parts of Virginia’s Constitution, including how such amendments must be approved and submitted to voters.

Hurley said the proposal had not been properly authorized by the General Assembly before being submitted to voters. The judge also called the ballot language “flagrantly misleading” and did not accurately describe the measure to voters.

The attorney general’s office said in a statement that it plans to immediately appeal the decision.

“As I said last night, Virginia voters have spoken, and an activist judge should not have veto power over the People’s vote,” Attorney General Jay Jones said in a statement. “We look forward to defending the outcome of last night’s election in court.”

Redistricting has long been a contentious issue in Virginia, as in many states, with debates often centered on partisan gerrymandering and the fairness of electoral maps.

The move was considered a victory for Democrats and could offer a potential boost for the party as they head into the midterms because the proposed redraw could expand their advantage to 10-1.

For now, the judge’s order leaves Virginia’s redistricting process unchanged and raises new questions about the viability of reform efforts moving forward. Both sides are likely to press ahead with a prolonged legal fight.

The Virginia Supreme Court paused an earlier rulingby Hurley ahead of the referendum, which allowed Tuesday’s vote to move forward while it reviews the case, which remains pending.

Ebony Davis is a breaking news reporter for MS NOW based in Washington, D.C. She previously worked at BLN as a campaign reporter covering elections and politics.

Read More

Continue Reading

The Dictatorship

Kalshi suspends 3 political candidates for betting on own elections

Published

on

Kalshi suspends 3 political candidates for betting on own elections

The prediction market Kalshi has suspended and fined three political candidates after an internal investigation found they placed bets on the outcomes of their own elections.

It marks one of the most significant steps yet by a U.S. prediction market to police insider behavior as the industry rapidly expands ahead of the 2026 midterm elections. Prediction markets, which allow users to buy and sell contracts tied to real-world outcomes, have surged in popularity but remain under intense scrutiny from lawmakers and regulators. Prediction markets can be opened for any world event from election results to economic indicators to whether President Donald Trump will drink water during the State of the Union.

The candidates include Matt Kleina candidate in the Democratic primary for Minnesota’s 2nd Congressional District; Ezekiel Enriquezwho competed in the Republican primary for Texas’ 21st Congressional District; and Mark Morana former Democrat running as an independent candidate in Virginia’s U.S. Senate primary.

The three cases involved what Kalshi has described as “political insider trading,” violating exchange rules approved by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, which regulates how platforms like Kalshi operate and are designed to prevent insider trading and conflicts of interest in event-based markets.

Kalshi said the candidates violated its rules by trading on markets in which they had direct influence. Under Kalshi’s policies, individuals who can affect the outcome of an event, such as candidates in their own races, are prohibited from participating in related contracts.

Five-year suspensions and financial penalties were imposed on all three individuals, according to regulatory documents. Klein and Enriquez accepted responsibility through settlements, resulting in reduced sanctions. Disciplinary action was taken against Moran, who acknowledged placing a wager on his own candidacy in what he described as an attempt to draw attention to perceived flaws in the system.

“Finally, one of the moments I’ve been waiting for. YES, I did bet ~$100 on myself on Kalshi because I wanted to get caught…,” Moran said in a lengthy poston X.

“I traded $100 on myself, knowing this would happen (also knowing that I wouldn’t be vying for the democratic nomination) and the attention it would create to highlight how this company is destroying young men and as Senator I will go after Kalshi,” he said.

Klein was fined $539.85, Enriquez received a $784.20 penalty and Moran faces the largest fine at $6,229.30.

“Just like in traditional financial markets, bad actors will try to cheat. Regulated exchanges must constantly evolve and adapt their systems to address insider threats,” Bobby DeNault, the head of enforcement and legal counsel at Kalshi, said in a press release. “These three cases are an example of how developing proactive engineering solutions can help identify illicit trading activity.”

Kalshi said the suspensions underscore its commitment to maintaining fair markets. The company had already moved in recent months to tighten restrictionsincluding plans to preemptively block politicians and athletes from trading on their own campaigns or sporting events. Those measures came amid mounting bipartisan concern in Washington that prediction markets could enable insider trading or manipulation if left unchecked.

The controversy surrounding the three candidates isn’t the first wave of enforcement actions. Earlier this year, Kalshi penalizeda California gubernatorial candidate and a social media influencer for similar violations.

Regulators are also paying closer attention. The CFTC has increased its scrutiny of insider trading cases, while states and federal lawmakers consider new restrictions on the industry. Congress is also considering legislationthat could impose new limits on prediction markets or restrict participation by certain groups, including elected officials and government employees.

Ebony Davis is a breaking news reporter for MS NOW based in Washington, D.C. She previously worked at BLN as a campaign reporter covering elections and politics.

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending