The Dictatorship

The best response to the Supreme Court’s Callais ruling: proportional representation

Published

1 month ago

May 2, 2026

May. 2, 2026, 6:00 AM EDT

The day after the Supreme Court gutted Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act in Louisiana v. CallaisLouisiana Gov. Jeff Landry issued an executive order purporting to halt the state’s House primaries so that the elections would be conducted in redrawn districts. Already, legislatures in several southern states have begun planning to dismantle districts that have protected voters of color from racial voting discrimination for generations.

Democratic-controlled state legislatures face a question: protect voters of color and their incumbent representatives, or maximize partisan advantage with more counter-strike gerrymanders of their own?

There’s actually a clear option for voting rights policy that would guard against racial discrimination while preserving the hard-won gains of the Voting Rights Act: proportional representation.

By amending the Uniform Congressional District ActCongress could neutralize the gerrymandering arms race and restore equality of opportunity to our democratic process. We suggest amending the law to make three fundamental changes to how members of the House of Representatives are elected.

By amending the Uniform Congressional District Act, Congress could neutralize the gerrymandering arms race and restore equality of opportunity to our democratic process.

First, states with more than one seat should elect members of Congress using multi-seat districts. Second, states should use some form of list ballot structure, where voters choose either a single candidate (as happens now) or a “party list” vote (like the straight-ticket voting used in six states). Third, states should allocate seats to party lists using a fair allocation formula to ensure that votes have equal weight in determining representation.

This type of system minimizes the state’s role in selecting winners and losers. While any method of registering voter preferences requires some state administration, the current system of single-seat districts allows the government — not the voters — to determine the primary basis of representation.

Additionally, this approach would achieve better representation for voters of color. It would preserve the protections provided by the Section 2 framework of the Voting Rights Act (VRA), with additional benefits. Under a single-seat “first past the post” system, the state is forced to arbitrate competing claims for representation among various racial groups. By contrast, our proposal shifts this power to the citizens, allowing voters to identify and organize their own electoral communities.

Under a list system, candidates running for office can choose to run together on a list, and seats are allocated to lists. This allows voters to pool their voting strength, such that every vote counts toward representation: Even if one’s top candidate fails to earn enough votes to be elected on their own, a vote still counts toward the list and the election of candidates from the voter’s preferred group of candidates. Moreover, the list system ensures minority representation. In a three-seat election, any list receiving 25% of voter support is guaranteed a seat.

List systems allow voters to exercise greater agency than does our single-seat, winner-take-all system. By grouping themselves on the basis of the identity that they find salient, voters determine which groups are entitled to representation. Voters of color are free to determine which aspects of their identity matter most to them. Under the Section 2 framework, voters of color are not entitled to representation as political minorities or based on their other identities even though the framework incentivizes a politics of racial-group identity.

Electing representatives throughout the United States via multi-seat list systems, the type used in the majority of other democraciesincluding Brazil, Norway and South Africa, would also improve substantive representation. List systems facilitate the emergence of different types of coalitions, which can make for more fluid and dynamic politics. Elections are more competitivecoalitions continually shift to attract more voters and party systems are more responsive. Because list systems allow efsmaller groups to gain representation, minority coalitions that do not run on ethnic appeals are likely to emerge, moving U.S. politics away from ethno-nationalist trends. The same mechanisms that facilitate the emergence and survival of racial minority coalitions also allow for small parties running on non-ethnic appeals to gain representation, which can temper racial polarization.

List systems facilitate the emergence of different types of coalitions, which can make for more fluid and dynamic politics. Elections are more competitive, coalitions continually shift to attract more voters and party systems are more responsive.

In the wake of the high court’s Callais decision, both parties may be tempted, tit-for-tat style, to use the redistricting process as a tool for partisan retaliation. This path of mutually assured destruction would further erode voting rights and the foundations of our democracy.

As two of us warned more than a decade agothe Callais decision was predictable. Civil rights activists might be tempted to double down on the VRA’s race-based anti-discrimination approach by relying on state voting rights acts to do what the federal Voting Rights Act once did. This would be a mistake.

Opponents of state voting rights acts would find it remarkably easy to use the Callais precedent to strike down bills that are mini-replicas of the federal VRA. The core objection of the Supreme Court’s conservatives to the Section 2 framework is that it requires the government to use race to allocate political power — a practice Chief Justice John Roberts famously dismissed years ago as the “sordid business” of “divvying us up by race.”

Reform must protect voters of color and ensure better representation for all Americans — goals that proportional representation is uniquely positioned to achieve. While amending the Uniform Congressional District Act remains the ultimate objective, progress does not have to begin in Congress.

Reformers should champion proportional representation at the local and state levels. With state legislatures reconsidering their electoral lawsthis is a perfect opportunity to consider proportional reforms. Local governments with the capacity to innovate should also serve as laboratories for electoral democracy. Voting rights reformers are not left powerless by the Callais ruling. There is an obvious next step. We don’t have to live with political or racial inequality.

Michael Latner is director of research on democratic reform at the Charles Hamilton Houston Institute for Race and Justice and a professor of political science at California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo.

Guy-Uriel E. Charles is the Charles J. Ogletree Jr. professor of law at Harvard Law School, where he also directs the Charles Hamilton Institute for Race and Justice.

Luis Fuentes-Rohwer is the Class of 1950 Herman B Wells Endowed Professor at Indiana University Maurer School of Law.

The Dictatorship

Court denies request to immediately block DOJ ‘slush fund’

Published

10 hours ago

June 11, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Court denies request to immediately block DOJ ‘slush fund’

Jun. 10, 2026, 6:14 PM EDT

A federal judge in Washington has denied a bid Wednesday brought by a watchdog group to immediately block the Justice Department’s “anti-weaponization” fund, for now choosing to trust the department’s assertions that it is not moving forward with the fund.

U.S. District Judge Richard Leon ruled immediately, denying Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington’s request for a temporary restraining order that would have blocked the Department of Justice from taking steps to create the fund.

Throughout the 30-minute hearing, the DOJ reiterated that the administration was not moving forward with the nearly $1.8 billion fund, which seeks to compensate individuals who allege they have been politically targeted or victimized by the DOJ.

Andrew Block, the only lawyer present for the government, repeatedly cited Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche’s June 2 congressional testimonyin which he said the administration was “not moving forward” with plans to create the fund.

Leon indicated he agreed with the DOJ’s position that the case appeared to be moot, saying he was not persuaded there was an issue for the court to decide regarding the creation of the fund. He issued a stern warning to the DOJ, saying, “Don’t play possum with this court!” — meaning he does not want to be deceived.

The plaintiffs argued Blanche’s testimony did not amount to an official cancellation. Nikhel Sus, CREW’s attorney, said Blanche “refused to memorialize that rescission,” or in other words, put it in writing. Sus said that was “highly unusual.” Leon responded, “This whole case is highly unusual to say the least.”

Leon asked the government twice why they would not just rescind the order that established the fund. Block responded, “I don’t know,” and pointed again to Blanche’s public statements about the fund’s future.

Both Leon and Sus raised the issue of Trump’s continued public defense of the fund. “It can still be an important issue and also not moving forward,” Block said. “That isn’t a direction to move forward with the fund.”

Although Leon rejected CREW’s bid for an immediate block, he indicated he is still considering its request for a longer-term block against the fund.

A block order from a separate federal judge in Virginia remains in effect until at least Friday.

Fallon Gallagher is a legal affairs reporter for MS NOW.

The Dictatorship

Trump is accelerating our Social Security insolvency crisis

Published

10 hours ago

June 11, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Jun. 10, 2026, 5:50 PM EDT

The date when Social Security’s trust fund is expected to run out of money just got bumped up. The fund is now projected to empty in 2032according to a new report released by Social Security’s trustees.

The new depletion date isn’t an earth-shaking change — it’s only a quarter earlier than the estimate in last year’s report. But it illustrates how President Donald Trump’s policies are degrading a program he promised to never jeopardize — and accelerating an approaching crisis in how our government will assist the elderly and disabled.

The report names three factors that contributed to the earlier insolvency date. One is a declining fertility rate, but the other two drivers can be traced back to Trump: a drop in immigration into the country, and the “substantial effect” of the tax policies in the One Big Beautiful Bill he signed last summer.

Trump’s acceleration of the program’s insolvency comes atop his assaults on the program’s administrative capacities.

Reduced immigration during Trump’s second term — especially when coupled with a declining fertility rate — strains Social Security because the program is funded through payroll taxes. Those come out of people’s paychecks, and fewer workers supporting an aging population means the program receives less revenue. Indeed, Social Security already has been tapping its trust fund for the better part of the past two decades because the program’s costs have exceeded its cash income. And as the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities pointed out last yearlast year’s tax cuts were a boon to the rich but a bust for the solvency of the Social Security trust fund.

To be clear, if the fund is depleted, Social Security won’t go belly up. Benefits will continue to be paid out, but there will be a large drop in the amount. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimates that the “average monthly cut would total $500, which is more than what the average retired household spends on groceries each month.”

That would be a huge blow to the budgets of many older Americans. Social Security is a major source of income for most retirees, and roughly 40% of beneficiaries over the age of 65 rely on it for most of their income. And it would mark the destabilization of the sole source of retirement security for most Americans that is supposed to be insulated from ups and downs — unlike 401K plans. As the CBPP has pointed outSocial Security is “most workers’ only source of guaranteed retirement income that is not subject to investment risk or financial market fluctuations.”

Trump’s acceleration of the program’s insolvency comes atop his assaults on the program’s administrative capacities. His cuts to the Social Security Administration have left offices understaffedincreased wait timesand reduced quality of customer service.

Ultimately, Trump is exacerbating a colossal social safety net problem that predates him, and the trust fund will hit dire straits after he has left office. Democrats need to have clear plans for shoring up the program and making it robust for the future — which will require not being sheepish about taxes as a tool for renewing the social contract. And when Republicans try to claim that they, too, are champions of Social Security, all Democrats need to do is point to the truth.

Zeeshan Aleem is a writer and editor for MS NOW. He primarily writes about politics and foreign policy.

The Dictatorship

Wednesday’s Mini-Report, 6.10.26

Published

10 hours ago

June 11, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Today’s edition of quick hits.

* The latest from Northern Ireland: “The family of a man who lost an eye in a knife attack appealed for calm on Wednesday after the incident triggered a wave of anti-immigrant violence in Belfast overnight, with masked men burning families out of their homes and torching vehicles. The appeal ‌came as a Sudanese man appeared in court charged with attempted murder and as British Prime Minister Keir Starmer and politicians in Northern Ireland condemned the violence by ‘masked thugs’ that had targeted ethnic minorities.”

* In related news: “The British government hit out at X owner Elon Musk Wednesday, accusing him of whipping up tensions online ahead of disorder in Belfast.”

* The tenuous state of a dubious ceasefire: “Trump said the U.S. is going to hit Iran ‘hard’ today when pressed by reporters in the Oval Office about his statement earlier that Tehran will ‘pay the price’ for taking ‘too long’ to reach a peace agreement. ‘Well, we’re going to be attacking them and attacking them very hard, resuming bombing,’ he said.”

* The latest casualty figures from Lebanon: “Israel’s military offensive in Lebanon has killed at least 3,666 people, including 131 healthcare workers, and injured more than 11,300 since the U.S. and Israel began their war with Iran in late February, the Lebanese health ministry reported yesterday.”

* The changing nature of modern warfare: “Ukraine is wreaking havoc on unarmored trucks and trains in the battlefield’s rear, using drones with upgraded engines and batteries, integrated Starlink communication systems and new artificial-intelligence capabilities. The ramped-up attacks are causing fuel shortages, complicating troop rotations and reducing Russian military activity on the front.”

* This seems like a reasonable request: “Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee demanded Wednesday that Bill Pulte, President Donald Trump’s controversial pick for acting director of national intelligence, submit to a full security check before assuming the post, including an examination of his financial holdings and foreign contacts.”

* Some market trends can’t be stopped despite the White House’s best efforts: “Even as President Donald Trump boosts coal over clean energy, solar power is hitting new milestones in the U.S. and remains the leading source of new power. Data released Wednesday by global energy think tank Ember, along with a report by the Solar Energy Industries Association and analytics firm Wood Mackenzie, show the continued growth of solar and decline of coal in the United States despite federal policy. In May, for the first time, solar supplied more of the nation’s electricity than coal, or 12.8%, Ember said.”

* A bizarre schedule for a nonemergency vanity project: “Federal officials are laying more groundwork to begin construction on President Donald Trump’s planned 250-foot-tall triumphal arch, sharing additional documents that detail the project’s scope and an aggressive timetable for potentially completing work before Trump’s term ends. According to National Park Service documents posted this month, the administration envisions 20 hours per day of construction on the arch, year-round, in hopes of completing the project within two to three years.”

See you tomorrow.

Steve Benen is a producer for “The Rachel Maddow Show,” the editor of MaddowBlog and an MS NOW political contributor. He’s also the bestselling author of “Ministry of Truth: Democracy, Reality, and the Republicans’ War on the Recent Past.”