April, 29 2026, 11:31am EDT
Supreme Court Eviscerates Last Remnants of Voting Rights Act, Opening Door ti Jim Crow Gerrymandering in Red States
Today, the Supreme Court issued a decision striking down a congressional map in Louisiana with a second majority-Black district. This decision guts Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and turns the 14th and 15th Amendments against Black Americans.
Stand Up America’s Managing Director of Policy and Political Affairs, Brett Edkins, issued the following statement:
“This is a tragic day for the freedom to vote and representative democracy. The Supreme Court just eviscerated the last remnants of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and opened the door to even more extreme gerrymandering that will try to drown out the voices of Black and brown voters, particularly in the South.
“The Court’s decision will escalate the arms race of partisan gerrymanders across the country and could lead to Republican-controlled states redrawing election maps to add an additional 19 GOP House seats. This partisan Court has handed a major election-year gift to Donald Trump and congressional Republicans who are trying to cling to power despite their growing unpopularity with voters.
“It’s time for Congress to act as a check on this rogue Court through major reforms, including term limits, an enforceable code of ethics, and adding more justices who will defend our fundamental freedoms once Trump leaves office.”
Since 2021, Stand Up America has been at the forefront of the fight for Supreme Court reform, mobilizing its members to take nearly one million actions in support of Supreme Court term limits, expansion, and a binding code of ethics. In 2025 and 2026, Stand Up America has been deeply engaged in efforts to oppose the White House’s mid-decade redistricting scheme, driving nearly 33,000 constituent calls, emails, and letters to state lawmakers in Indiana, Texas, Kansas, Nebraska, Missouri, Utah, and Florida. Stand Up America members have also made hundreds of thousands of constituent calls and emails in support of federal voting rights legislation.
Stand Up America is a progressive advocacy organization with over two million community members across the country. Focused on grassroots advocacy to strengthen our democracy and oppose Trump's corrupt agenda, Stand Up America has driven over 600,000 phone calls to Congress and mobilized tens of thousands of protestors across the country.
LATEST NEWS
Comey Indictment Called 'New Low' for White House 'At War with First Amendment'
"This is embarrassing for America," said one First Amendment advocate.
Apr 29, 2026
As the corporate media joins the White House in a new round of accusations against critics of President Donald Trump in the wake of an attempted attack on the White House Correspondents' Association dinner last week—with acting Attorney General Todd Blanche blaming anti-Trump "rhetoric" for the violence at the event—the administration on Tuesday unveiled a new indictment of longtime Trump foe James Comey in what legal experts called a transparent attack on the First Amendment.
At a press conference held by Blanche and FBI Director Kash Patel, the officials made the case—without presenting specific evidence—that a federal grand jury in North Carolina had indicted former FBI chief Comey because he'd "knowingly and willfully [made] a threat to take the life of, and to inflict bodily harm upon" Trump in May 2025 in a photo he posted on Instagram.
The picture showed seashells grouped together in a pattern, reading, "86 47."
Trump is the 47th president of the United States, and the slang term "86" means "to get rid of," originating in the 1930s. According to Merriam-Webster, the term began being used as a verb in the 1950s when restaurants and bars used it to mean refusing service to a customer or throwing them out of an establishment. That use of the term is still the most common, according to the dictionary, which wrote: "Among the most recent senses adopted is a logical extension of the previous ones, with the meaning of 'to kill.' We do not enter this sense, due to its relative recency and sparseness of use."
Comey quickly deleted his post last May, which he said he had shared after finding the seashells in the arrangement during a walk on a beach. The former FBI director said he deleted that post after realizing "some folks associate those numbers with violence," and said he opposes violence "of any kind."
Nevertheless, the indictment handed down on Tuesday reads that the shells were “arranged in a pattern making out ‘86 47,' which a reasonable recipient who is familiar with the circumstances would interpret as a serious expression of an intent to do harm to the president of the United States.”
Comey was charged with one count of making threats against Trump and one count of transmitting a threat across state lines.
Federal officials issued a warrant for Comey's arrest, but Blanche did not say whether any court dates had been scheduled in the case.
The indictment was dismissed by several legal experts, with prosecutors within the US Department of Justice reportedly calling it "the flimsiest federal indictment in memory," according to ABC News correspondent Jonathan Karl. Building a case based solely on an image of seashells will be an uphill battle for the DOJ, particularly considering First Amendment protections on speech.
New York University law professor Ryan Goodman called the indictment "laughably ludicrous" and a "political act masquerading as an indictment," while US Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) condemned the president for using the DOJ as his "personal attack dog, using taxpayer money to settle Trump's petty grievances."
This is the second federal indictment that's been handed down by the DOJ for Comey in seven months. Last September he was indicted on two counts of lying to Congress during a testimony he gave in 2020 regarding the FBI's handling of its investigation into Trump's 2016 presidential campaign's ties to Russia.
The DOJ indicted Comey in that case even though a Trump-appointed US attorney had concluded there was insufficient evidence to charge him; the president later forced the prosecutor out of his job. A judge ultimately threw out the indictment, ruling that the prosecutor's replacement had been unlawfully appointed to oversee the case.
Both cases have come years after Trump, during his first term, fired Comey as FBI director over the agency's investigation into his 2016 campaign.
Conservative lawyer Gregg Nunziata of the Society for the Rule of Law called the latest indictment of Comey "legally deficient" and a "scandalous marker of a president and his administration corruptly using government power to punish dissent."
American Immigration Council senior fellow Aaron Reichlin-Melnick noted that the administration has "repeatedly pursued criminal charges (or other punishments) against political opponents for their speech, at a level not seen since the most censorious days of the early 20th century," including by attempting to charge members of Congress for reminding service members they are obligated to disobey illegal orders.
"In an administration at war with the First Amendment," said Reichlin-Melnick, "this is a new low."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Tragic Day for the Freedom to Vote': Supreme Court Guts Remnants of Voting Rights Act
“Make no mistake: This ruling isn’t about the law, it’s about power, and giving Republicans more US House seats they couldn’t otherwise win at the ballot box," said one critic.
Apr 29, 2026
The US Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that Louisiana must redraw its 2024 congressional map—which created a second majority-Black district to mitigate persistent barriers to equal representation—in a decision that further guts the already tattered Voting Rights Act.
The justices ruled 6-3 along ideological lines in Louisiana v. Callais that the state's map is "an unconstitutional racial gerrymander," effectively voiding the last remaining provision of Section 2 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act (VRA), which allows voters of color to challenge racially discriminatory electoral maps in court.
The case centers on the redrawing of Louisiana's six congressional districts to better reflect the population of a state in which one-third of the people are Black, as Section 2 states that minority voters should have the same chance as others to elect candidates of their choice.
Civil and voting rights advocates challenged Louisiana's Republican-drawn and racially rigged congressional map. A federal judge agreed that the map likely violated Section 2, and the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that ruling, ordering Louisiana to draw a new map by January 2024.
Louisiana complied, creating a second majority-Black district. But opponents challenged the 5th Circuit ruling to the Supreme Court, which declined to hear the appeal until the outcome of a similar case in Alabama, in which the justices found that the state's rigged congressional map discriminated against Black voters.
A group of non-Black voters argued in a lawsuit that the consideration of race in creating a second minority-majority district in Louisiana violated the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause and the 15th Amendment’s ban on federal and state governments denying citizens the right to vote based on “race, color, or previous condition of servitude.”
The Trump administration supported the challengers, arguing that Black voters had no right to a second majority-minority district. The Supreme Court's right-wing justices—three of whom were nominated by Trump—agreed.
“Allowing race to play any part in government decision-making represents a departure from the constitutional rule that applies in almost every other context,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the right-wing majority. “Compliance with Section 2 thus could not justify the state’s use of race-based redistricting here."
Dissenting, Justice Elena Kagan wrote that the ruling represents the "latest chapter in the majority’s now-completed demolition of the Voting Rights Act.”
Kagan said the majority "straight-facedly holds that the Voting Rights Act must be brought low to make the world safe for partisan gerrymanders."
Signed into law in 1965 by then-President Lyndon B. Johnson amid a groundswell of civil rights activism, the VRA was meant to ensure that state and local governments could not “deny or abridge the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color.”
However, the law has been eroded in recent decades by Republican-controlled state legislatures across the country, including through racially rigged and other gerrymandered congressional maps, restrictions on voter registration, reduction in early voting options, and voter identification laws. These measures disproportionately disenfranchise minority voters, and some GOP officials have admitted that they are intended to give Republican candidates an electoral edge.
In 2013, the Supreme Court dealt a major blow to the VRA in Shelby County v. Holder, which eviscerated a key section of the law that required jurisdictions with a history of racist disenfranchisement to obtain federal approval prior to altering voting rules. In 2021, the nation’s high court voted 5-4 in Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee to uphold Arizona’s voting restrictions—even as Chief Justice John Roberts acknowledged that they disproportionately affect minorities.
Voting rights defenders decried Wednesday's ruling.
“Today the Supreme Court gutted the remaining protections of the Voting Rights Act and handed [President] Donald Trump even more unchecked political power as he wields the presidency like a power-mad authoritarian," Demand Justice president Josh Orton said in a statement.
“Make no mistake: This ruling isn’t about the law, it’s about power, and giving Republicans more US House seats they couldn’t otherwise win at the ballot box, all while trampling the voting rights of communities of color," Orton added. “Today’s decision is another example of why the Supreme Court has lost both its legitimacy and the trust of the American people. It must face fundamental reform if it is to once again serve our democracy.”
Nourbese Flint, president of the reproductive justice group All* Above All, lamented that "the Supreme Court yet again denies communities of color a voice in their own destiny."
"This is part of a coordinated assault on self-determination, and we have to name it as such," Flint added. "The same court that gutted the Voting Rights Act came for Roe. If we are serious about defending reproductive justice that means we have to defend democracy and reform this extremist court.”
Stand Up America managing director of policy and political affairs Brett Edkins called Wednesday "a tragic day for the freedom to vote and representative democracy."
"The Supreme Court just eviscerated the last remnants of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and opened the door to even more extreme gerrymandering that will try to drown out the voices of Black and brown voters, particularly in the South," Edkins said.
"The court’s decision will escalate the arms race of partisan gerrymanders across the country and could lead to Republican-controlled states redrawing election maps to add an additional 19 GOP House seats," he continued. "This partisan court has handed a major election-year gift to Donald Trump and congressional Republicans who are trying to cling to power despite their growing unpopularity with voters."
“It’s time for Congress to act as a check on this rogue court through major reforms," Edkins added, "including term limits, an enforceable code of ethics, and adding more justices who will defend our fundamental freedoms once Trump leaves office.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Why Wouldn't You Just Release It?': DNC Chair Confronted Over Buried 2024 Election Autopsy
As grassroots Democrats push national committee chair Ken Martin to release the suppressed report, a longtime party booster asked, “What’s in the report that you wouldn’t want to publicize?”
Apr 29, 2026
Democratic National Committee Chair Ken Martin was confronted on a podcast on Tuesday about his continued refusal to release an "autopsy" report dissecting the party's defeat in the 2024 election.
Grassroots groups have not let up on calls to release the report, which Martin said in December would not be released publicly, claiming it would "prove counterproductive" to the party's efforts going forward.
While the full report remains under lock and key, it was reported in February that the officials who crafted it believed that the Biden administration’s unwavering support of Israel’s genocidal attack on Gaza cost then-Vice President Kamala Harris votes on Election Day and contributed to her loss to President Donald Trump.
When Martin appeared on Tuesday on the Pod Save America podcast, host Jon Favreau—a former speechwriter for President Barack Obama and a longtime booster of Democrats—refused to let the chairman off the hook for his excuses for not releasing what he has referred to as the “after-action review” of the election.
Favreau pointed to the fact that when Martin ran for the position after the party's gutting loss in 2024, he'd specifically criticized the party for refusing to release a similar report on Hillary Clinton's loss in 2016 and promised that "of course" a review of the party's 2024 loss "will be released" to the public.
"Why did you change your mind on that?" Favreau asked.
"What I said all along, even when I ran for this position, is that we were going to focus on the things that will help us win the upcoming election, right?" Martin said. "Making sure that we learn the right lessons that could help inform our victories. And that's what we've done."
Martin said it was more important to "keep our focus on those lessons" rather than "navel gazing and looking backwards, trying to relitigate 2024."
Favreau pointed to comments Martin made on Pod Save America in August, saying that the party was hard at work on the report “to give people who invested so much time, energy, and money a sense of what happened and why we lost.”
"What changed between August and December?" Favreau asked. "I understand there are lessons, but those are not the full report. Why not release the full report? What's in the report that you wouldn't want to publicize?"
Martin responded: "There's no smoking gun in the report, and I know that's what everyone's so eager to learn, the smoking gun... Guess what, Jon? There's no surprise in there."
Clearly unconvinced, Favreau interjected, "But if there's no smoking gun, why wouldn't you just release it then?"
Martin reiterated his previous point, that releasing the full report would be "looking backwards," and accused activist groups of being "obsessed" with the idea that there was a "smoking gun" buried within.
"Why did you spend the money going to 50 states, doing all these interviews, doing all this stuff, and doing this report in the first place if you weren't going to release the full results of it?" Favreau asked. "I don't get why just you and some of the senior [Democratic National Committee] people get to see it but not most of the DNC members who are state party chairs."
Favreau pointed to a call last week by more than a dozen DNC members to release the report, including Rep. Delia Ramirez (D-Ill.) and North Carolina Democratic Party Chair Anderson Clayton. He quoted Clayton, who asked, “Genuinely, what did you all find that we did not?”
Martin said the DNC had shared all of the "lessons" of the report with these members, but that they should stop focusing on the idea that it will contain "the one single reason that Kamala Harris lost the election or one single thing that we should have done differently that's going to help us win in the future."
The Institute for Middle East Understanding (IMEU) Policy Project has reported that behind closed doors, DNC officials who worked on the autopsy report have described Biden's policy toward Gaza as a "net-negative" in 2024, according to data the committee collected. DNC officials independently corroborated these findings to Axios in February.
While the results of any election are multifaceted, a poll commissioned by the IMEU Policy Project and conducted by YouGov in January found that when Biden 2020 voters cast their votes in 2024, 29% of them said the "most important issue" in deciding their vote was "ending Israel's violence in Gaza," a higher percentage than any other issue, including the economy.
Among Biden 2020 voters in battleground states who decided not to vote for Harris, 38% of them in Arizona said ending Israel's violence in Gaza was their top issue, while 32% said the same in Michigan and Wisconsin, and 19% did in Pennsylvania—all crucial states Harris lost by thin margins.
Polls of Democratic voters find that they overwhelmingly view Israel's military campaign in Gaza, which has killed at least 75,000 Palestinians, destroyed most of the territory's essential infrastructure, and left most of the population displaced, as a "genocide" and want the US to halt military support for Israel.
Most also say they want Democratic candidates to end their associations with pro-Israel lobbying groups like the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), which poured more than $100 million into the 2024 elections, including to influence Democratic primaries. The DNC also recently killed a resolution directly condemning AIPAC's influence, even as it continues to spend big against progressive candidates in this year's congressional primaries.
Journalist Adam Johnson remarked that while defending his decision not to release the autopsy on Tuesday, Martin appeared to find about "seven different ways of saying 'pro-Israel groups and donors don’t want us to release it because it’ll make obvious what a liability Israel is to the party' without saying it."
He criticized Martin's excuse that "looking backward" at past failures would be a pointless exercise.
"By definition, lessons and history and accountability require looking backward," he said. "This is how humans assess future actions as entropy moves the arrow of time in only one direction."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular