The Dictatorship

The Supreme Court has all but killed the law that helped kill Jim Crow

Published

2 months ago

April 30, 2026

Apr. 29, 2026, 8:42 PM EDT

ByStacey Abrams

The Supreme Court’s decision in Louisiana v. Callais is a direct hit to the heart of the Voting Rights Act and to the fragile promise that every American’s vote should carry equal weight. The VRA ended Jim Crow. Full stop. With this decision, it’s open season — once again — on Black and brown voters at the ballot box.

In 2023, the Supreme Court instructed Alabama to finally draw fair maps to create two majority-Black constitutional districts to allow Black citizens a shot at equal representation. Today, that same Supreme Court ruled that Louisiana’s two majority-Black congressional districts are unconstitutional — and in doing so, gutted Section 2 of the VRA, opening the door to racial gerrymanders across the South and Southwest.

It’s open season — once again — on Black and brown voters at the ballot box.

Let’s first understand what the VRA is. After the Civil War, the 13th Amendment banned slavery (mostly). The 14th Amendment granted birthright citizenship (for now). And the 15th Amendment barred the federal government and the states from denying the right to vote based on race, color and servitude (in theory). But until the fairly recent year of 1965, the 15th Amendment was routinely ignored by Southern states using the legal mechanism of Jim Crow.

Poll taxes, literacy tests and language restrictions were the most visible tools of voter suppression. However, Black voters who successfully navigated those hurdles still faced the ignominy of not having a real choice. Hostile political regimes drew the boundaries of voting lines and districts to make it impossible for Black and brown voters to elect anyone who represented their interests. Enter the Voting Rights Act.

Section 2 of that act made it illegal to design districts to dilute or block racial communities from finding common cause. It also required a corrective action: When populations routinely boxed out of meaningful participation hit a certain threshold, political districts should reflect their growing power. Thus, political leaders couldn’t use maps as weapons to permanently silence the voices of people of color.

The John Roberts Court has now declared that racism in American politics is no more. Despite the recent behavior in Texas and North CarolinaWednesday’s cruel Callais decision pretends that Jim Crow is a bygone era and not this week’s news. Section 2 represented the core protection against racially discriminatory redistricting, but now the court has dramatically narrowed one of the last meaningful tools marginalized communities had to challenge maps designed to erase their political existence. For decades, Section 2 gave Black voters in the South and brown voters in the Southwest access to the courts to remedy harm. There was something those voters could do when, for example, state legislatures split Black neighborhoods across districts or packed Latinos into as few seats as possible to minimize their broader influence. Section 2 was not a perfect safeguard but it worked, and it instituted accountability.

Now, thanks to Roberts, who has made a career of dismantling the Voting Rights Actand the rest of the Supreme Court’s conservative members, that accountability is gone.

We are rushing headlong into midterm elections, and that timing matters. The Supreme Court and those celebrating this decision know what they’ve done. Lines drawn on state maps determine who has a realistic chance to win seats in Congress and in state legislatures. Lines drawn on county and municipal maps determine who wins seats on school boards. Such lines can be drawn to guarantee voters of color are silenced before a single vote is cast. The consequences of this disastrous ruling are already reverberating across our country. Majority-Black districts could be dismantled or diluted. Latino districts in fast-growing areas could lose political muscle. Representatives championing the minority communities they represent will likely lose their seats. Congressional maps in closely divided states could be tilted further away from competitiveness.

Almost immediately, Florida redrew its federal legislative districts as lawmakers meet in special session. In Mississippi, the state where I grew up, the governor has called for a special session to make the state Supreme Court less racially representative. In Georgia, where I live, conservative candidates are calling for the Georgia Legislature to follow suit. Today’s decision will open a floodgate of redrawn political districts and retaliatory actions, a mere four years before the next U.S. Census will remind us of what we know to be true: The demographics of America are evolving. This ruling is an attempt to slow the pace of change, if not halt it altogether.

Once such horrible maps are in place, reversing them is extraordinarily difficult.

While Black voters are disproportionately at risk after Thursday’s ruling — they could lose up to 30% of the Congressional Black CaucusFair Fight Action and Black Voters Matter say — it’s important to emphasize that every American who doesn’t share the ideology driving the erasure of Black voting strength is at risk.

When courts curtail the ability to challenge unfair maps, the ripple effects extend to Latino communities, Asian American neighborhoods, Native American enclaves, young voters, working-class districts and rural regions alike. The restoration of racial discrimination in voting makes it easier to take power from all of us. As devastating as Thursday’s ruling is, we saw it coming. Over 15 years, the VRA has been weakened several times. Shelby County v. Holder hollowed out Section 5. Rucho v. Common Cause allowed for partisan gerrymandering and Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee limited lawsuits against racially discriminatory voting laws.

The Voting Rights Act stood as a guard against abuse of power by a racial majority that had — and has — repeatedly failed to act fairly.

Today’s ruling on Louisiana v. Callais strikes even closer to the bone by narrowing the very mechanism communities use to fight discriminatory maps in court. These decisions have steadily built upon one another, eviscerating the protections mandated by the 15th Amendment and perhaps altering the country’s memory of what the VRA attempted to fix. More than just a law protecting voting rights, the VRA stood as a guard against abuse of power by a racial majority that had — and has — repeatedly failed to act fairly.

This is how authoritarianism is imposed: through incremental decisions that remove democracy’s guardrails. We now find ourselves returning to the before-times. But instead of Alabama state police on the Edmund Pettus Bridge, we have state legislators with poison pens, drafting themselves into permanent power. In a democracy, the faith of the people is born of a belief that they can participate in its processes and benefit from its success. Authoritarians need only break that faith in order to hold on to power or expand it. And the Supreme Court has been hard at work to make it so.

But the Supreme Court is not the only actor in this story. Congress retains the authority to strengthen voting rights protections. State legislatures can adopt independent redistricting commissions or refuse to vote for racially discriminatory maps. Voters can reach out to elected officials at every level of government and demand that they publicly take a stand for voting rights. Civic organizations can mobilize communities to solve for voter suppression tactics even when the rules shift.

In Louisiana v. Callais, the Supreme Court lies to America by claiming a racial neutrality in our laws that every day under this regime proves false. Politicians opposed to full participation in democracy will rush to take advantage of this hat-tip to hatred, and the resulting political fights will destabilize our country months ahead of November’s midterm elections.

But the midterms are a way station on the road to saving America’s soul, and we must understand them — and this decision — as a call to action. We who believe in democracy must act with urgency and elect leaders of moral integrity.

The fight for a multiracial democracy is the central pillar of our national story. For 250 years, we have grappled with our choices and sometimes suffered the consequences. But we have always moved forward when people organized, persisted and refused to back down. That work must — and will — continue.

Stacey Abrams

Stacey Abrams, a New York Times bestselling author, is a former member of the Georgia House of Representatives, where she served as minority leader for seven years. She was the first Black woman to become the gubernatorial nominee for a major party in United States history.

The Dictatorship

Mitch McConnell’s office doesn’t want to talk about why he’s hospitalized

Published

8 hours ago

July 7, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Mitch McConnell’s office doesn’t want to talk about why he’s hospitalized

When it comes to members of Congress and medical transparency, it’s been an unfortunate year.

Republican Rep. Tom Kean Jr. of New Jersey was away from his duties for nearly four months for reasons he only recently disclosed; Democratic Rep. Frederica Wilson of Florida missed roughly a month of work for a medical issue she disclosed after the fact; and Republican Rep. Neal Dunn of Florida, who’s struggled with health concerns he didn’t share, has been out for roughly a month and reportedly told GOP leaders that he won’t be voting at all unless party leaders really need him.

And then there’s Republican Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky. The New York Times reported:

Senator Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky and the former majority leader, was hospitalized on June 14. Since then, his office has provided few updates about his condition.

The scant official statements have led to speculation around Washington and efforts to piece together information on what happened.

Questions about McConnell’s health are not altogether new. In recent years, the former GOP leader, who turned 84 in February, has been seen with unexplained bruises, has suffered unexplained falls and, in some especially unsettling moments, has frozen up and appeared unable to speak.

But as a related NBC News report noted, it’s now been 23 days since McConnell was admitted to the hospital, and if members of his team have information about why he was hospitalized or how he’s doing, they have kept those details from the public for reasons unknown.

The most recent statement from McConnell’s office, issued late last week, said the senator “appreciates the outpouring of support he’s receiving while he continues his recovery in the hospital” and that he “continues to improve, and is working closely with his staff on Kentucky and Senate matters while the Senate is out of session.”

That sounded vaguely encouraging, and people of goodwill can certainly hope he continues to recover from whatever it is that led to his hospitalization in the first place, but secrecy necessarily generates questions about why a prominent public official is not sharing basic details about his condition with his colleagues and constituents.

The Times’ report added, “Emergency responders the morning the Kentucky Republican was hospitalized reported performing CPR on an unconscious individual undergoing cardiac arrest at the senator’s Washington address, according to recordings of dispatcher calls that were widely reported by news outlets last week and obtained by The New York Times.”

The recordings did not specifically identify McConnell as the patient, and the senator’s office refused to say whether the calls were related to him.

As for the near future, in the event that McConnell’s Senate seat were to become vacant, state law in the Bluegrass State has changed a couple of times in recent years. In 2021, Kentucky’s Republican-led legislature approved a measure that would require Democratic Gov. Andy Beshear to fill a Senate vacancy by choosing one of three GOP options presented by state lawmakers.

In 2024, the Republican-led legislature changed state law again to remove the governor’s authority to fill a vacancy altogether: If Kentucky faces a Senate vacancy, the seat would remain empty until a statewide special election can be held.

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.”

The Dictatorship

As the dam breaks on Graham Platner’s Senate candidacy, what happens next in Maine?

Published

8 hours ago

July 7, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

As the dam breaks on Graham Platner’s Senate candidacy, what happens next in Maine?

When Democrats in Maine were introduced to Graham Platner last summer, the oyster farmer and combat veteran quickly started picking up the kind of enthusiastic grassroots support other Senate candidates can only dream of. It wasn’t long before his campaign events were drawing the crowds usually reserved for leaders such as Barack Obama and Bernie Sanders.

But a couple of months into his candidacy, as his record started to face greater scrutiny, controversies came to the fore. They were followed by more controversies and more still.

Most of his backers shrugged off the revelations, insisting that his near future was more important than his recent past. In early June, Platner held a private meeting with members of the Senate Democratic conference, who heard the candidate offer assurances that the worst was behind him. There was no reason to expect another round of damaging headlines, he said, just days before cruising to an impressive victory in Maine’s statewide primary on June 9.

As this week got underway, however, everything changed after Politico reported that a woman he previously dated had accused him of sexual assault. MS NOW reported:

Jenny Racicot, 41, of Maine said that Platner — whom she said she had casually dated on and off from 2019 to 2021 — entered her home one night late in 2021, uninvited and deeply intoxicated, and forced her to have sex despite her telling him to stop, according to the news outlet.

Racicot also detailed the allegations in a lengthy interview with BLN’s Jake Tapper, describing the accusations after they were first reported by Blue Light News.

For his part, Platner called the allegations “troubling, serious, and false” in a written statement, adding, “Any accusation of non-consensual behavior is categorically untrue.” The candidate nevertheless went on to post a video to social media in which he said, “[R]egardless of the inaccuracy of the reporting, but mindful of the political reality it will inflict, we are taking the time to reflect on the best path forward for the state that I love, the people I love, the movement I belong to and the goal of defeating [incumbent Republican Sen.] Susan Collins.”

Democratic officials cannot force him to drop out of the race. Platner won his primary race fair and square, and if he decides to keep running despite the scandals, there is nothing anyone can do about it.

What the party can do, however, is pressure Platner to exit and make clear that his support in Democratic politics has evaporated. That is precisely what happened on Monday afternoon, as the state and national party completely abandoned Platner and urged him to stand down. The pushback was not limited to those who were already skeptical of his candidacy: Several prominent Democrats who had endorsed Platner reversed course after seeing the Blue Light News article, withdrew their backing and called on him to quit.

We’ll learn soon enough whether the candidate reads the writing on the wall, but in the meantime, there are two overarching questions to keep in mind: (1) How would Platner be replaced, and (2) who would Maine Democrats replace him with if he bows out?

As to the former, there is a limited window of opportunity. Under Maine lawDemocratic officials would have the power to choose a replacement candidate, but only if he withdraws before the second Monday in July. At that point, Maine’s secretary of state would declare a vacancy and state party officials would choose a new nominee before a July 27 deadline.

Platner, in other words, has a week to make up his mind.

As to the latter question, quiet whispers about possible Platner alternatives have lingered for weeks, but that conversation grew much louder on Monday. The jockeying to replace Platner began soon after the embattled candidate said he was reflecting on the race, with much of the focus turning to Democrats who ran in Maine’s recent gubernatorial primary, only to come up short against former state House Speaker Hannah Pingree. That list includes Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows, former state Senate President Troy Jackson and Nirav Shah, former director of the Maine Center for Disease Control and Prevention.

There’s been related scuttlebutt about Jordan Wood, who recently lost a competitive U.S. House primary race in the northern part of Maine; Dan Kleban, who briefly ran for the Senate before exiting last year; and former state House Speaker Sara Gideon, who lost to Collins six years ago but who still has a fair amount of money left in her campaign account.

Outgoing Gov. Janet Mills, who suspended her own Senate campaign in late April, appears unlikely to gain serious consideration. Watch this space.

The Dictatorship

Trump’s attacks on Democrats as ‘communists’ only show he’s out of touch

Published

8 hours ago

July 7, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Christmas. 7, 2026, 6:00 AM EDT

President Donald Trump has a new favorite midterm strategy: painting the Democratic Party as a band of godless communists. It’s not going to pan out the way he wants.

During his speech Friday at Mount Rushmoreon the eve of Independence Day, Trump warned of a “resurgence of the communist menace in our land, including from newcomers to our country who embrace ideas totally opposed to our way of life and our great success.” The line was an unsubtle reference to the election of New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani in 2025 and successful left-wing candidates in recent House primaries, including a Mamdani-backed trio that won contests in New York City.

Trump described the growth of the leftists in American politics as an apocalyptic development: “These are not mere political disagreements like differences over taxes or regulations. Communism is a mortal threat to American liberty. It is the greatest threat to our country, including World War I, World War II, Pearl Harbor or even 9/11,” Trump huffed. He added, “Communism is the exact opposite of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It’s death, tyranny and the pursuit of evil.”

The word “communist” is not the bogeyman it was during the 20th century or even the first decade of the 21st century.

During his remarks, Trump mentioned the term “communism” or “communist” 15 times. He invoked communism multiple times the following day in his July 4th speech. And the White House posted on X on Independence Day: “You can be a communist or you can be a patriot. You cannot be both.” Right-wing influencers and Republicans have also begun to use the term to attack the left more often in recent weeks. This effort is concerted, desperate and likely doomed.

It’s standard practice for a political party to use the opposition’s most ideologically radical members to paint the entire party with the same brush. Sometimes it can be effective as a messaging strategy. But trying to portray Democrats specifically as communist seems like a dead end.

The word “communist” is not the bogeyman it was during the 20th century or even the first decade of the 21st century. The Cold War has long been over. Millennials and Gen Z Americans either were not alive or were not politically conscious at a time when communism was seen in popular culture as a serious national security and economic threat. To them, communism is a historical term, not a haunting specter. The Communist Party U.S.A. exists, but it is a tiny and politically irrelevant organization. Trump, perpetually stuck in the 1980slikely overestimates the power of “communist” as a slur.

Trump’s “communist” agenda is also inaccurate in a way that a good chunk of the public is likely to understand. He falsely claims that democratic socialists are no different from communists. The most prominent communist projects of the 20th century in the Soviet Union and China involved authoritarian political organizations and centrally planned economies, and were known for massive human rights abuses and dysfunction in distributing resources. By contrast, democratic socialists believe in democratic political organization and reject central planning. (This is a broad delineation; there are nuances that extend beyond the scope of this brief article.)

American democratic socialists today are not proposing extreme upheavals of society and economy, but modest social democratic reforms. These ideas, like publicly funded healthcare and childcare, already exist and are proven to be wildly successful in other affluent democracies. Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt. — the most prominent living democratic socialist in America and consistently one of the most popular politicians in the country — isn’t associated with rationing food, but with taxing billionaires and demanding the popular idea of Medicare for All.

Finally, Trump’s panning of the democratic socialist insurgency as an assault on capitalism implicitly suggests that capitalism is worth defending wholesale. That puts him in the kind of position that doesn’t suit him: defending the status quo. Meanwhile, polls in recent years have indicated a declining approval of capitalism, and slowly rising approval of — or reduced negative feelings toward — socialism. Realistically speaking, not everyone who has a favorable opinion of socialism would not be able to define what it is. But they view it broadly as a program of social equality in a deeply unequal society, not as a portal to gulags.

Of course, it may very well be the case that most of the midterm electorate remains skeptical that the small democratic socialist bloc represents the future of the Democratic Party. The movement gets a lot of attention, but that’s not the same as power. What voters will know is that Trump is in power and has done nothing for the U.S. economy except make it more comfortable for the ultrarich and more expensive for everyone else. And no appeals to 20th century bogeymans can change that.

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