The Dictatorship
The Supreme Court has all but killed the law that helped kill Jim Crow
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.
FBI agents on Thursday raided the Cleveland offices of the Ohio Organizing Collaborative, a pro-democracy organization that helps register voters in that state, according to three people briefed on the search.
Agents also fanned out across the state, showing up at the homes of the group’s leaders and staff members, carrying some subpoenas and seeking information and electronic devices, according to the people, two of whom spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive ongoing investigation. Members of the group had made contact with lawyers on Thursday to determine their legal options, the people said.
Prentiss Haney, a board member for Ohio Organizing Collaborative, told MS NOW Thursday night that agents approached people with connections to Ohio Organizing Collaborative, including some who had performed basic canvassing and volunteer work for the group, and began pressing them for information.
Agents were “basically trying to fish for information,” said Haney.
“They had agents all across the state going to civil rights leaders and community leaders’ doors intimidating them, coming and demanding that they talk about literally anything they would ask,” Haney said, adding that agents “asked them if they’re committing voter fraud, just on their doors, in front of their houses with their children, and just following them to work and school.”
Haney said some of the people said the agents approached without warrants.
“Just straight-up intimidation tactics,” he said.
Spokespeople for the FBI and the Justice Department did not immediately respond to requests for comment late Thursday night.
Those sources familiar with the investigation said they are concerned this new effort in Ohio is part of the Trump administration’s efforts to sow doubt and distrust in voting integrity in key swing states ahead of the midterm elections.
Federal agents have in recent months launched inquiries and investigations into voting protocols in Georgia and Wisconsin, have subpoenaed voting records in Arizona and sought reviews of voting machines in Puerto Rico.
According to its website, the Ohio Organizing Collaborative facilitates statewide voter registration through grassroots, community-led programs, including its “Democracy Builders” initiative. This collaborative works in Ohio’s major metropolitan areas, such as Cleveland, Columbus and Cincinnati, to help underrepresented communities register to vote and provides other support.
The group has also joined lawsuits challenging redistricting efforts that it argues reduce Black voters of representation. These lawsuits also “stand your ground” laws that allow a person to shoot someone if they feel threatened.
Haney said the Cleveland raid and harassment of staff are unjustified and that investigators lack any evidence of wrongdoing.
“How can they distract and intimidate civil rights leaders and voters and community leaders who are helping people get registered to vote and create a national spectacle about it?” he said.
“That is the only reason why they would choose to do that, do it now, in the middle of a contested political election in the state. There’s no other reason. They have no evidence of that.”
Carol Leonnig is a senior investigative reporter with MS NOW.
Will McDuffie is a reporter for MS NOW.
Alex Tabet is a reporter for MS NOW.
Laura Barrón-López covers the White House for MS NOW.
The Supreme Court rejected Alabama’s attempt to execute Jeffery Lee with nitrogen gas after lower courts stopped the state from executing him with that method.
Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch voted to side with the state, according to the court’s unexplained order on Thursday night denying the state’s emergency application.
On Tuesday, a Trump-appointed judge in Alabama blocked the state from executing Lee under its nitrogen-hypoxia protocol. U.S. District Judge Emily Marks found that Lee proved the state’s method violates the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment.
She emphasized that although she was issuing a permanent injunction against the nitrogen method, she wasn’t banning the state from executing Lee. She said the record showed his alternative proposal of the firing squad “significantly reduces a substantial risk of severe pain as compared to nitrogen-hypoxia.”
Under precedent adopted by the Supreme Court’s GOP-appointed majority, an inmate who challenges an execution method as unconstitutional must propose an alternative method that is feasible, readily implemented and significantly reduces a substantial risk of severe pain.
Having scheduled Lee’s execution for Thursday, Alabama officials moved to lift Marks’ injunction in an effort to proceed as planned. Procedurally, they first had to ask Marks herself for relief. In their motion to the judge, they said she downplayed the risks of the firing squad, as well as the state’s concern about finding willing and able executioners for the shooting method.
State officials further said the fact that they scheduled Lee’s execution for Thursday “should have sunk his claim.” They said that “however easy or hard it would be to implement a firing squad in the abstract, there’s no support for the view that it could be done two days from the Court’s decision that it satisfies the Eighth Amendment test.”
Marks rejected the motion to lift her injunction, noting that the state’s urgent motion did “little more than repeat the arguments it made previously,” which she also had rejected. She added that the state had no right to complain about the timing because it was the state that set Lee’s execution while litigation was pending.
A divided three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit declined to disturb Marks’ ruling. The panel’s majority recounted that a judge’s permanent injunction like the one Marks issued is entitled to deference and can be overturned only if the judge abused her discretion. With that in mind, the majority said her findings were “amply supported by the evidence presented.”
And noting that courts reviewing motions for urgent relief consider the “irreparable harm” at stake, the majority observed: “It goes without saying that Mr. Lee would suffer irreparable harm if he were executed pursuant to a method that the district court has found unconstitutional.”
On the other hand, the majority said the state’s preferred Thursday execution timing “is not a magical date” and that “the injury to the State caused by a delay would not be irreparable because the district court’s injunction allows it to execute Mr. Lee by any other authorized method (including lethal injection or the electric chair).”
Trump-appointed Judge Robert Luck was the panel dissenter. He began by recalling that Lee was sentenced to die for robbing and murdering Jimmy Ellis and Elaine Thompson 26 years ago. “Unlike his victims, Lee was allowed to choose his method of execution,” he added, referring to Lee’s initial choice of nitrogen hypoxia as an alternative to lethal injection during a previous round of litigation.
“For as long as we’ve had an Eighth Amendment, the Supreme Court has never held that a state’s method of execution qualifies as cruel and unusual under the Eighth Amendment,” Luck wrote. “Because we shouldn’t do so here, I would grant the state’s motion to stay the injunction.”
Lee’s jury had recommended a life sentence, but the judge sentenced him to death under Alabama’s “judicial override” option, which has since been abolished.
The state cited Luck’s dissent in seeking emergency relief from the Supreme Court on Thursday. Officials told the high court that if the lower court ruling in Lee’s favor stands, it would be “unprecedented in American history.” The state said it would not only “portend the first-ever permanent ban on a legislatively enacted method” but would also “expand the concept of cruelty well beyond the bounds of the Eighth Amendment.”
Georgetown University law professor Steve Vladeck, an expert on the Supreme Court’s so-called shadow docketsubmitted an amicus brief opposing the state. He said Alabama was trying to do something procedurally that it shouldn’t be allowed to do. He explained that unlike in other emergency challenges that states have brought to the justices, Alabama wasn’t challenging a temporary execution stay issued by a lower court, but rather a permanent injunction.
“After all,” Vladeck said in the brief, “allowing Alabama to execute Mr. Lee through a grant of emergency relief would necessarily frustrate this Court’s ability to conduct plenary review of the district court’s final, permanent injunction.”
Highlighting that point, Lee’s lawyers told the justices that the case was “in a procedural posture unlike every previous method of execution challenge that this Court has considered.” They noted that unlike other emergency litigation in capital cases, “this case comes to the Court following a full three-day bench trial on the merits — the first such trial anywhere on the constitutionality of nitrogen asphyxiation.”
They said Lee wasn’t challenging his death sentence or the state’s ability to execute him but rather “only the method that Alabama intends to employ.” They said the state wanted to make the case moot by executing Lee “using an unconstitutional and permanently enjoined method,” but that the state hadn’t “cited a single case in which this Court has intervened in a capital case in such an extraordinary way.”
Subscribe to the Deadline: Legal Newsletter for expert analysis on the top legal stories of the week, including updates from the Supreme Court and developments in the Trump administration’s legal cases.
Jordan Rubin is the Deadline: Legal Blog writer. He was a prosecutor for the New York County District Attorney’s Office in Manhattan and is the author of “Bizarro,” a book about the secret war on synthetic drugs. Before he joined MS NOW, he was a legal reporter for Bloomberg Law.
The Dictatorship
Kennedy Center board seeks delay of ruling on removal of Trump’s name by Friday deadline
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump’shandpicked board at the Kennedy Center is mounting a last-minute effort to keep his name on the facade of the iconic performing arts facility before a court-ordered deadline to remove it by Friday.
The board voted on Thursday to seek a stay of U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper’s May 29 ruling that said Trump’s name was illegally added to the Kennedy Center, according to a person familiar with the move who requested anonymity to discuss a private meeting. The formal stay will be filed on Friday, the person said.
Cooper ruled that only Congress could institute a change to the Kennedy Center’s name and ordered references to Trump be removed by Friday. He also blocked the administration from closing the cultural and arts venue for major renovations that had been planned to start in July and last for two years.
The board move marks a shiftfrom a June 4 memo to staff from the Kennedy Center’s Office of General Counsel saying email signatures, letterhead and other documents must reflect the name as “The John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts” or “Kennedy Center.”
The Kennedy Center’s website has dropped the president’s name. And an email earlier this week sent to membersoffering ticket packages for the June 28 Mark Twain Award for American Humor ceremony came from the Kennedy Center without including Trump’s name.
After ignoring the Kennedy Center for much of his first term, Trump has wielded tremendous influence over the venue during his return to office. Just a month into his second term, he oustedthe center’s previous leadership and replaced it with a hand-picked board of trustees that named him chairman. He brought in Richard Grenell to serve as president, a position he held until March when Matt Floca assumed the role.
The center’s lineup has included more Trump-friendly programming, serving as the venue for events such as the premiere of first lady Melania Trump’s documentary, “Melania.”
The board also announced it had renamed the facility the Trump Kennedy Center, a change scholars and lawmakers say must be initiated by Congress, and physically added the president’s name to the building’s facade.
The fallout from the arts community was swift and intense. Actor Daddy Rae,musician Bela Fleck and author Louise Penny were among the numerous artists who withdrew from appearances, while consultants such as musician Ben Folds and singer Renée Fleming resigned. Earlier this month, the executive director of the National Symphony Orchestra, Jean Davidson, left to head the Los Angeles-based Wallis Annenberg Center for the Performing Arts.
In addition to voting on the stay on Thursday, the board backed a resolution recognizing Trump’s “commitment to uphold this cherished American institution.”
- Bosnia beat Italy. Utica never recovered.
- Not another political World Cup
- Capitol agenda: What Schumer told us about AI
- Rick Scott lifts holds on Coast Guard promotions
- FBI raids Ohio voting-rights organization
- Supreme Court rejects Alabama’s attempt to conduct nitrogen gas execution
- Kennedy Center board seeks delay of ruling on removal of Trump’s name by Friday deadline
- Trump’s Iran strike deadlines keep shifting: A timeline of delays
- What’s most worrying about Trump’s ‘I love the inflation’ statement
- Senate Democrats’ political fortunes have improved. ‘It didn’t happen by accident,’ Schumer says.
-
Politics1 year agoFormer ‘Squad’ members launching ‘Bowman and Bush’ YouTube show
-
The Dictatorship1 year agoLuigi Mangione acknowledges public support in first official statement since arrest
-
Uncategorized2 years ago
Bob Good to step down as Freedom Caucus chair this week
-
Politics1 year agoFormer Kentucky AG Daniel Cameron launches Senate bid
-
The Dictatorship1 year agoPete Hegseth’s tenure at the Pentagon goes from bad to worse
-
The Josh Fourrier Show2 years agoDOOMSDAY: Trump won, now what?
-
Politics1 year agoBlue Light News’s Editorial Director Ryan Hutchins speaks at Blue Light News’s 2025 Governors Summit
-
The Dictatorship9 months agoMike Johnson sums up the GOP’s arrogant position on military occupation with two words