SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
maga
Inside the Trumpian Plot to Rig the Midterms... and Every Election After
The fate of the American experiment with democracy will depend not on our institutions, but on our collective will to preserve it at the ballot box and beyond.
Aug 28, 2025
With the midterms more than a year away, US President Donald Trump and his enablers have launched a new war on voting rights. Its immediate target is November 2026; its ultimate goal is the institutionalization of one-party control of the federal government. This political “final solution” is the last step in MAGA’s quest to extinguish liberal democracy in America.
The war is being fought along legal and political fronts that stretch across the marble halls of the Supreme Court, Trump’s executive orders, Steve Bannon’s seedy podcast, the transformation of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) into a latter-day Praetorian Guard, and threats to invoke the Insurrection Act.
The Supreme Court, the Voting Rights Act, and Racial Gerrymandering
When it comes to voting rights, no single institution has been more destructive than the nation’s top judicial body under the hypocritical leadership of Chief Justice John Roberts.
In his 2005 Senate confirmation hearing, Roberts promised to serve as chief justice in the fashion of a baseball umpire, calling “balls and strikes, and not to pitch or bat.” That was nonsense then, and it’s nonsense now.
Roberts has always been a Republican insider and activist, dating back to his stint in the early 1980s as a crusading young lawyer in the Justice Department, where he wrote upward of 25 memos, suggesting strategies to limit the scope of the Voting Rights Act (VRA), the landmark legislation passed by Congress in 1965 to outlaw racial discrimination in voting.
Redistricting experts predict that if the GOP gambit in Texas and elsewhere succeeds, the party could hold the House until 2050.
In 2013, he made good on his lifelong mission by authoring the infamous 5-4 majority opinion in Shelby County v. Holder, one of the most regressive rulings in Supreme Court history. Shelby gutted sections 4 and 5 of the VRA, which had required state and local jurisdictions, mostly in the South, with histories of egregious voter suppression, to obtain advance federal approval—a process known as “preclearance”—before making changes to their election procedures. Roberts declared in Shelby that “things have changed dramatically” since the passage of the VRA and that racial discrimination in voting no longer took place.
Shelby left Section 2 of the VRA as the last remaining bulwark of the law. That section prohibits voting practices that discriminate on the basis of race, color, or language. Both the Supreme Court and the lower federal courts have long recognized the right of private parties and organizations to file lawsuits under Section 2 to challenge “racial gerrymanders,” which occur when a state uses race as the primary factor in redistricting to dilute the voting power of minority populations. Civil rights groups like the American Civil Liberties Union and the NAACP Legal Defense Fund have used Section 2 litigation to force the creation of numerous majority-Black or “majority-minority” voting districts to give minorities a fair chance to elect candidates that reflect their views.
All that could change when Roberts and his Republican benchmates hear oral arguments in Louisiana v. Callais on October 15. The case stems from a complaint brought by a group of individuals who describe themselves in court filings as “non-Black voters.” They contend Louisiana violated their 14th Amendment rights to equal protection when it created a second Black-majority voting district in 2024 to give Black voters, who comprise nearly a third of the state’s electorate, proportional representation in the state’s six-member congressional delegation. If the court agrees with them, it could gut Section 2, leading to the elimination of an estimated 11 Black-majority districts, all held by Democrats, across GOP-controlled Southern states. Such a decision would neuter what little remains of the VRA.
Political Gerrymandering, Texas and California
Even if the court rules against the “non-Black” plaintiffs in Callais, it has given its blessings to another method of election rigging known as “partisan gerrymandering”—the practice of drawing state voting districts to benefit the political party in power. In 2019, by way of a 5-4 majority opinion penned by Roberts, Rucho v. Common Cause, the court held that partisan gerrymandering, no matter how disproportional or extreme, presents a “nonjusticiable political question” that lies beyond the jurisdiction of federal judges to alter or correct.
Both parties have traditionally engaged in partisan gerrymandering, but the GOP has perfected the technique in the wake of Rucho, with Texas as a prime example. Responding to a direct demand from Trump, the state has drafted a new congressional voting map designed to give Republicans an additional five House seats. Other Republican states, including Florida, Indiana, Missouri, and Ohio, are likely to heed Trump’s plea and revise their voting maps before the midterms.
The GOP’s moves have finally awakened a fighting spirit among Democrats, but the outcome of the counterattack is uncertain. Led by Gov. Gavin Newsom, California has set a special election for this November to consider a ballot proposition that would suspend the state’s current congressional map, which was drawn by an independent commission, and replace it with one that could give Democrats a five-seat boost to match the Texas power-grab. Democrats in New York, Illinois, and Maryland reportedly are exploring ways to follow Newsom’s lead.
Meantime, the Texas redo is a done deal, offering Trump and the GOP a clear path to retaining their stranglehold on federal power. Redistricting experts predict that if the GOP gambit in Texas and elsewhere succeeds, the party could hold the House until 2050.
Trump’s Executive Orders, Proclamations, and Rants
Emboldened by the Supreme Court’s 2024 Roberts-authored decision on presidential immunity (Trump v. United States), Trump has made good on his pledge to be a “dictator on Day One” of his second term, releasing a torrent of autocratic executive orders and proclamations. These include an executive order issued on March 25 with the Orwellian title of “Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American Elections.” Among the order’s many directives is a requirement for voter ID to prove citizenship, and a prohibition on counting mail-in ballots that are sent in by Election Day but delivered afterward.
On April 24, federal district court judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, a Clinton appointee who sits in Washington, DC, issued a preliminary injunction, blocking the ID requirement and other provisions, noting that “Our Constitution entrusts Congress and the states—not the president—with the authority to regulate federal elections.” Unfortunately, the judge’s order failed to address the constitutionality of the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act, which in many respects tracks the executive order. The SAVE Act was passed by the House on April 10 and is now pending before the Senate.
A permanent one-party state controlled by Trump and the GOP will set back women’s interests indefinitely.
Undeterred by the courts, Trump has doubled down on his demands, vowing to impose nationwide voter ID by presidential fiat, ban mail-in ballots and replace voting machines with hand counting. In remarks delivered at the White House on August 18, he claimed that “mail-in ballots are corrupt,” and no other country permits them. In fact, some 34 countries allow them.
Trump has also demanded a new census that would exclude undocumented aliens to be conducted as soon as possible. The census is mandated every 10 years by the Constitution and is used to determine how many House seats are apportioned to each state. To date, no census has been conducted mid-decade, and never have the undocumented been excluded.
The Impact on Women
The election law changes demanded by Trump and the GOP will also undermine the voting power of women.
According to the Pew Research Center, despite the Democratic Party’s declining approval ratings, women remain 12 percentage points more likely than men to affiliate with the Democrats. Exit polling conducted by CNN after the last election found a similar gender gap, showing that women nationwide voted for former Vice President Kamala Harris over Trump by a 10% margin. Black women in particular have been the most reliable supporters of the Democratic Party. In 2024, a whopping 92% of Black women opted for Harris, continuing a decades-long trend.
Women also hold more liberal values than men on a variety of key political issues, such as abortion access, gun control, environmental protection, and racial justice. This is especially true of younger women between the ages 18 and 29. A permanent one-party state controlled by Trump and the GOP will set back women’s interests indefinitely.
Steve Bannon and ICE
On his War Room podcast on August 19, right-wing fulminator Steve Bannon upped the ante in the voting rights war, calling for the deployment of ICE to monitor polling places to ensure that “If you don’t have an ID—if you’re not a citizen—you’re not voting.”
It is, of course, illegal under federal law to deploy the military or armed federal troops to patrol polling places as monitors or observers unless they are needed to repel an armed invasion. A section of the US Code makes it a felony punishable by up to five years in prison to do so. The Voting Rights Act also prohibits federal agents from intimidating voters, and the Posse Comitatus Act of 1868 generally proscribes using the military as civilian law enforcement.
These safeguards could easily be circumvented by an ICE army that will be 10,000 strong by the midterms simply by staging high-profile immigration enforcement operations anywhere in blue cities on Election Day. The intimidation effect would be palpable.
The Insurrection Act and the Final Solution
Should all other options for election-rigging appear unavailing by 2026, Trump will have one final card to play: declaring a national emergency and invoking the Insurrection Act of 1807 to delay or even suspend the elections. The act provides an exception to the prohibitions of the Posse Comitatus Act, and as Attorney General Pam Bondi and the Justice Department will no doubt argue, all other federal statutes.
Trump threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act in 2020 in response to the George Floyd protests, and again this past June in response to protests in Los Angeles. Never in American history has the act been invoked to disrupt an election. But if Trump feels sufficiently threatened by a potential loss of power, there is little reason to believe he would not choose to become the first. Nor could we count on the Supreme Court to try to stop him.
In the end, as always, the fate of the American experiment with democracy will depend not on our institutions, but on our collective will to preserve it at the ballot box and beyond. Each of us has an obligation to spread the word and peacefully resist in whatever way we can.
Keep ReadingShow Less
The Federal Policing of DC Has Made Us Less Safe
DC is a dangerous place today, and it is because of DC’s occupation by federal law enforcement and troops.
Aug 26, 2025
In my 50-some years of community and political ministry, and organizing that resisted Boston's test with "stop and frisk" after the hoax of Charles Stuart murdering his wife and blaming it on a Black man, I thought I had seen it all. Then when Edward Coristine, a 19-year-old former Department of Government Efficiency worker and software engineer known online as "Big Balls," was assaulted in Dupont Circle in reportedly a carjacking incident it was deja vu of Boston and the neighborhood where I lived, Roxbury, being turned upside down again.
I thought I had already seen the worst of white reaction to Blackness, but again I was wrong. US President Donald Trump and the MAGA-white supremacist chorus used the Coristine incident as justification for a city gone wild that needed to be brought under control. I listened and heard all of the political hyperbole on the airwaves and in social media that I had heard before. It was another version, I thought, of Raymond Flynn, Mayor of Boston during the Charles Stuart hoax, declaring that it was a terrible night in Boston and turning loose the police on the Black community and advancing tactics like "stop and frisk." I listened and heard once again words and statements that would justify the Trump-MAGA-authoritarian regime's initiatives to demonstrate to its white base that at all cost white life will be protected, and the Black culprits brought into line. It seems that everyone has conveniently forgotten the feigned genesis that was used to justify this attack upon our city, on our democracy, home rule in DC, and civilian government.
I watched and listened at the legal battle that unfolded between the Trump administration and the DC attorney general about who would be in charge of this new municipal-federal police force. The DC attorney general took the matter to court, and it was determined that the DC chief of police would remain in charge—for now, but in compromise the DC government bowed to the anti-sanctuary sentiments dictated by the Trump regime. Trump talked about how dangerous DC was, and said it is plagued with crime, that visitors are in danger for their lives, that the parks need to be cleaned up from homeless encampments, Confederate statues needed to be replaced, and the cracked marble on monuments need to be repaired.
Trump stressed the dangers and disrepair of Washington, DC. Challenged the Mayor, Muriel Bowser, in her management of the city, and recently has threatened to erase home rule all together and completely "federalize" the city. Mayor Bowser first attempted to appease the Trump-MAGA-White Supremacist regime as it came to power. She dismantled "Black Lives Matter Plaza" that was dedicated on 16th Street NW leading up to the White House, created after the murder of George Floyd and Trump's upside-down Bible photo op in front of the Episcopal church sitting on the edge of Lafayette Square. But there would be no appeasement, and the mayor proved how out of step she was in this historical moment by citing crime statistics and the facts about crime rates being down. The Trump-MAGA-white supremacist regime could care less about crime statistics, but offered what happened to "Big Balls" as an example of a threat to all white people. Trump cited how mismanaged the city was and how dangerous it is to live here.
If you walk or drive around the streets of DC, you will feel it and see it—this is martial law without the declaration.
I am someone who can admit to the dangers of DC today, but not in the terms presented by Trump and his band of parrots. DC is a dangerous place today, and it is because of DC's occupation by federal law enforcement and troops. What I have seen and experienced over the last week has been marked and unmarked cars with masked and unmasked personnel. I have seen their awkwardness and discomfort interacting with the people of DC. What I have seen and experienced during this brief time has been many different kinds of law enforcement agencies stopping people for all kinds of concocted offenses.
While driving with a friend a few nights ago, we drove past at least 10 police cars from various agencies including Secret Service with a Black man held and handcuffed standing behind a car. He was surrounded by different kinds of cops. I turned the car around, parked it, got out, and went over to question the police on what they were doing. A DC cop who seemed to decide that he was going to be my liaison explained that the man was stopped for driving with tinted windows. The handcuffed man explained and appealed to me that his grandmother who was seated in the passenger side of the car needed to get home safely. He continued, saying that he had taken her to dinner and she needed to get home if he was being arrested. The incident drew more than 10 cops. The man eventually was arrested for driving with tinted windows. The DC lieutenant who interfaced with me assured me that he would get the man's grandmother home.
Another incident that I witnessed took place a few days later on a Saturday. Many of us have been running a picket line supporting the boycott of Target in conjunction with the national campaign. Where the Target store is located is an area with a concentration of immigrants. It is the Columbia Heights-Adams Morgan neighborhood in the city. We have been on the picket line for months, and on 14th Street NW, the street has always been busy with shoppers of diverse populations.
Normally the street is lined with grassroots vendors selling all kinds of wares and goods. The immigrant community has shopped there, immigrant vendors sell there, and the street has always been crowded with tents and tables laden with whatever people were selling. Over the course of our time picketing Target, and in the last few weeks, we have watched the vendors disappear. We have seen the street get quieter, and the shoppers diminish.
But on this particular Saturday, as the Target picket line was disbanding, the DC police stopped a Latino motorcyclist supposedly for having the tags on his motorcycle turned upward and illegally parking. It so happened that I knew one of the DC cops and went over to talk to him. He assured me that he was not going to check the immigrant status of the individual. I thanked him for that but admonished the DC police for harassing the man in the first place. The cop I knew responded to me that he was under strict orders to stop people for what they would not ordinarily stop people for. I told him that this was a sad state of affairs, and he agreed.
Just then Homeland Security showed up with other agencies wearing brown uniforms as if they were patrolling in Iraq or Afghanistan. It was then, when those federal law enforcement entities showed up, that the crowd that had been watching the encounter became more vocal, agitated, and were unified in their demands. With cellphone cameras in hand, people began to yell, "Get the fuck out of here," "Nobody wants you here," "Leave hardworking people alone," and "Get the fuck out of DC!"
The crowd of onlookers quickly swelled from 10-20 to more than 100 people. They were white, Black, Latino, male, female, young, and old. It was everybody. And what I realized, as I caught the image of a federal agent in a brown stormtrooper uniform staring threateningly at the crowd with his hand on his hip near his gun, his facial expression declaring, "I dare you," was the real threat to residents of DC. As I looked at this anonymous agent with his blue eyes and hostile stare and presence, I realized that he was hoping for and wanting something to "hop off" so that the military presence might be thoroughly justified.
I also saw something that is rare, and that is how the jeering crowd yelling at the occupiers, demanding that they get out of DC and hurling "F" bombs, was unified in their anger, defiance, and solidarity with one another and those being victimized. I saw in the mixture of law enforcement responding to minor and nonexistent incidents in DC and the unity of the anger from the community toward these occupiers that there is going to be some kind of response in the form of an uprising. This is not something that I am advocating, but I have seen that the defiance and outrage over the presence of federal law enforcement agencies roaming the streets of DC will precipitate a situation that will quickly get out of hand.
We are witnessing cop stops that would usually entail one or two police cars currently demanding five and 10 cars for nonexistent and questionable legal violations. I have seen agents with no identification on them (some of them masked) and National Guard units from states where there is a lack of people of color in the population making those National Guard details whiter. I have seen the overconcentration of law enforcement harassing people for no legitimate reasons. I have also seen a unity of anger not seen before from the people of Washington, DC, and that along with the discomfort of many of these law enforcement occupiers among a racially and culturally diverse population is like striking matches to gasoline.
We all know that an uprising is precisely what the Trump-MAGA-white supremacist regime wants to see. They want an uprising so that they can call up more troops and take over more cities. We need to be aware of the racial fuse being lit that traces back to accusations of Black men raping white women or beating white men. It reaches back to the Charles Stuart hoax that I witnessed and lived through in Roxbury, Massachusetts.
The indignity that "Big Balls" experienced has been referenced and represents the global threat of violence to whiteness. The fuse is being lit in cities where there are Black mayors and where cities are perceived as largely Black and non-white. They are trying to light the fuse, and the outrage that people are feeling is making every incident a terribly dangerous one. But the danger is not from the residents of DC but from the occupiers, some in uniform and some not, but the occupation is inflaming and will instigate an incident. This is what I hope doesn't happen, but at the same time I hope that the sense of defiance and the anger that I have seen will remain intact, vigilant, and unified.
And finally, I want to be very clear: This occupation is not an attempt to make our cities safer, but this is a step toward martial law. If you walk or drive around the streets of DC, you will feel it and see it—this is martial law without the declaration. Whether it is declared or not the feelings and appearance are the same. We must continue our defiance and resistance, or we will find that the entire country will be changed and made into a dangerous hostile white plantation once again but for all of us.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Oklahoma Screening Teachers From California, New York for 'Radical Leftist Ideology'
"This MAGA loyalty test will be yet another turnoff for teachers in a state already struggling with a huge shortage," said American Federation of Teachers president Randi Weingarten.
Aug 20, 2025
Teachers from California and New York seeking work in Oklahoma will be required to pass an "America First Test" designed to weed out applicants espousing "radical leftist ideology," the state's public schools chief affirmed Monday.
Oklahoma—which has a severe teacher shortage, persistently high turnover, and some of the nation's worst educational outcomes—will compel prospective public school educators from the nation's two largest "blue" states to submit to the exam in a bid to combat what Superintendent for Public Instruction Ryan Walters calls "woke indoctrination."
"As long as I am superintendent, Oklahoma classrooms will be safeguarded from the radical leftist ideology fostered in places like California and New York," Walters said in a statement Monday.
Walters told USA Today that the test is necessary to vet teachers from states where educators "are teaching things that are antithetical to our standards" and ensure they "are not coming into our classrooms and indoctrinating kids."
However, American Federation of Teachers president Randi Weingarten warned in a statement Monday that "this MAGA loyalty test will be yet another turnoff for teachers in a state already struggling with a huge shortage."
The exam will be administered by Prager University—also known as PragerU—a right-wing nonprofit group which, despite its name, is not an academic institution and does not confer degrees.
While all of the test's 50 questions have not been made public, the ones that have been published run the gamut from insultingly basic—such as, "What are the two parts of the U.S. Congress?"—to ideologically fraught queries regarding the "biological differences between females and males."
PragerU's "educational" materials are rife with false or misleading information regarding slavery, racism, immigration, the history of fascism, and the climate emergency. Critics note that the nonprofit has received millions of dollars in funding from fossil fuel billionaires.
PragerU materials also promote creation mythology over scientific evolution and attack LGBTQ+ people, especially transgender individuals, calling lifesaving gender-affirming healthcare "barbaric" while likening its proponents to "monsters."
In one animated PragerU video, two children travel back in time to ask the genocidal explorer Christopher Columbus why he is so hated today. Columbus replies by asserting the superiority of Europeans over Indigenous "cannibals" and attempting to justify the enslavement of Native Americans by arguing that "being taken as a slave is better than being killed."
Closer to home, PragerU's curriculum aligns with so-called "white discomfort" legislation passed in Oklahoma and other Republican-controlled states that critics say prevents honest lessons on slavery, the Jim Crow and civil rights eras, and enduring systemic racism.
The law has had a chilling effect on teachers' lessons on historical topics including the 1921 Tulsa massacre, in which a white supremacist mob backed armed by city officials destroyed more than 35 city blocks of Greenwood, the "Black Wall Street," murdering hundreds of Black men, women, and children in what the US Justice Department this year called a "coordinated, military-style attack."
Responding to Oklahoma's new policy, University of Pennsylvania history professor Jonathan Zimmerman told The Associated Press that "instead of Prager simply being a resource that you can draw in an optional way, Prager has become institutionalized as part of the state system."
"There's no other way to describe it," he said, adding, "I think what we're now seeing in Oklahoma is something different, which is actually empowering Prager as a kind of gatekeeper for future teachers."
Oklahoma is not the only state incorporating PragerU materials into its curriculum. Florida, Montana, New Hampshire, and Texas have also done so to varying degrees.
Weingarten noted Walters' previous push to revise Oklahoma's curriculum standards to include baseless conspiracy theories pushed by President Donald Trump that Democrats stole the 2020 presidential election. Walters also ordered all public schools to teach the Bible, a directive temporarily blocked by the Oklahoma Supreme Court in March. The court also recently ruled against the establishment of the nation's first taxpayer-funded religious charter school.
"His priority should be educating students, but instead, it's getting Donald Trump and other MAGA politicians to notice him," Weingrarten said in her statement.
Cari Elledge, president of the Oklahoma Education Association, called the new testing requirement "a political stunt to grab attention" and a distraction "from real issues in Oklahoma."
"When political ideology plays into whether or not you can teach in any place, that might be a deterrent to quality educators attempting to get a job," she added. "We think it's intentional to make educators fearful and confused."
California Teachers' Association president David Goldberg told USA Today that "this almost seems like satire and so far removed from my research around what Oklahoma educators need and deserve."
"I can't see how this isn't some kind of hyper-political grandstanding that doesn't serve any of those needs," he added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular