Hakeem Jeffries ERUPTS After Republicans GAIN House Seats - Total Meltdown in D.C.
JACKSON, Mississippi — April 21, 2026
Mississippi Governor Tate Reeves has announced he will convene the state legislature in a special session to redraw the three judicial districts used for electing justices to the Mississippi Supreme Court.
The session is scheduled to begin 21 calendar days after the U.S. Supreme Court issues its decision in the case of Louisiana v. Callais. That pending ruling is expected to address important questions under the Voting Rights Act of 1965 regarding race-based districting.
Governor Reeves stated that the legislature needs the opportunity to draw new maps once the legal framework is clarified by the nation’s highest court. He noted that the current districts have not been updated since 1987 and that a federal district judge’s order requiring changes has been appealed and stayed pending the Supreme Court’s decision in the Louisiana case.
The governor emphasized that federal law and state constitutional principles require the legislature to have the first opportunity to redraw maps after major legal developments. He expressed hope that the U.S. Supreme Court will reaffirm the principle that citizens should not be classified by race in electoral maps, describing such classifications as “odious to a free people.”
The current structure divides the state into Northern, Central, and Southern judicial districts, with three justices elected from each. A 2025 federal district court ruling found that the Central District, which includes majority-Black areas in the Delta and Jackson regions, dilutes Black voting strength under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. The ruling came after a lawsuit filed by the ACLU, the ACLU of Mississippi, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and private attorneys.
The state appealed the decision to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which paused proceedings while awaiting the outcome in Louisiana v. Callais. That case examines whether creating a second majority-Black congressional district in Louisiana to comply with the Voting Rights Act constitutes an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.
Legal observers note that the Mississippi Supreme Court’s eventual ruling on the state’s redistricting amendment could have broader implications for how states handle judicial and congressional maps. The amendment, which narrowly passed a recent referendum, would allow the legislature to redraw congressional districts mid-decade. However, a lower court has blocked certification, citing procedural and constitutional issues, and the state Supreme Court is expected to hear arguments soon.
The developments reflect ongoing national debates over redistricting, the Voting Rights Act, and the balance between legislative authority and judicial oversight. Both parties have engaged in map-drawing efforts in states they control, with significant implications for control of the U.S. House in upcoming elections.
Governor Reeves’ decision to call the special session underscores the state’s intent to address redistricting once the legal parameters are clarified by the U.S. Supreme Court. The outcome could influence not only judicial elections in Mississippi but also the broader conversation on race and representation in electoral maps across the South.
Nearly 150,000 California Mail Ballots Rejected In Primary
California election officials are examining why nearly 150,000 mail-in ballots were rejected during the state’s June primary, with late-arriving ballots accounting for most of the increase.
The higher rejection rate comes despite years of election law changes designed to make voting more accessible and ensure more ballots are ultimately counted.
According to data compiled by the California Secretary of State’s office, 148,241 mail-in ballots were rejected during the June primary, representing 1.73% of all mail ballots returned.
That marks an increase from the 2024 primary, when 108,982 ballots were rejected, or 1.56% of all mail ballots cast.
The largest reason for rejection was ballots arriving too late to qualify under California law.
State data shows that 93,479 ballots were rejected because they failed to meet the state’s deadline requirements.
California allows mail ballots to arrive up to seven days after Election Day, provided they are postmarked on or before Election Day.
Voting experts believe many of the rejected ballots received postmarks dated after Election Day, making them ineligible to be counted even if they arrived within the seven-day grace period.
Kim Alexander, president of the nonpartisan California Voter Foundation, said the timing of postal processing appears to be a significant concern.
“Ballots rejected due to lateness are caused primarily to being postmarked too late to count, not because they arrived too late to count,” Alexander said.
Election experts have questioned whether recent operational changes within the U.S. Postal Service may be contributing to delayed postmarks.
Earlier this year, a group of mostly Democratic U.S. senators wrote to the Postal Service expressing concern that mail-processing changes could affect ballot handling during federal elections.
Updated Postal Service procedures mean postmarks may reflect when mail is processed at regional facilities rather than when it first enters the mail system.
Because processing centers have been consolidated in some areas, election officials have warned that postmark timing could be affected.
Before the June primary, California election officials encouraged voters to mail ballots as early as possible because of potential postal delays.
The June election also featured a highly competitive race for governor, which some experts believe encouraged many voters to wait until the final days before casting ballots.
In addition to late-arriving ballots, approximately 44,000 ballots were rejected because election officials determined the voter’s signature did not match the signature on file.
Another 8,300 ballots were rejected because the return envelope did not contain a signature.
State records also show that 743 ballots were rejected because those voters had already cast another ballot.
Other rejected ballots involved missing ballots inside return envelopes or multiple ballots submitted in a single envelope.
The highest rejection rate in the state occurred in Tulare County, where 3.52% of returned mail ballots were rejected.
Alpine County and Merced County followed closely, each recording rejection rates of 3.36%.
California has frequently faced criticism for taking weeks to complete vote counting after major elections, largely because state law permits ballots meeting certain requirements to continue arriving after Election Day.
Following the June primary, President Donald Trump again criticized California’s election system, while the Department of Justice opened an investigation into election administration in Los Angeles County.
Election experts emphasize that the increase in rejected ballots should not be interpreted as evidence of widespread voter fraud.
A 2025 report by the Brookings Institution found documented cases of mail ballot fraud remained extremely rare, estimating roughly four cases for every 10 million mail ballots cast, The Associated Press reported.
State officials have not identified evidence of widespread fraud connected to the June primary, but the increase in rejected ballots is expected to receive additional scrutiny as election administrators evaluate whether changes in postal operations, voter behavior or election procedures contributed to the higher rejection rate.
