Supreme Court Appears Poised to Weaken Voting Rights Act
The U.S. Supreme Court seems ready to impose stricter controls on the enforcement of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act by federal courts, which could protect state lawmakers from challenges that mix race and partisanship in the redistricting process.
The impending decision carries immense weight, with two prominent voting rights organizations cautioning that the removal or restriction of Section 2 could empower Republican-led legislatures to change the boundaries of as many as 19 congressional districts to their advantage.
In the re-arguments of Louisiana v. Callais, a conservative majority expressed a willingness to consider an approach supported by the Trump Justice Department.
This could complicate the ability of plaintiffs to succeed in claims of racial vote dilution in areas where voting patterns closely mirror party affiliations—a defining characteristic of contemporary Southern politics.
Advertisement
The situation arises from Louisiana’s 2022 congressional map, which a federal district court has found likely to violate Section 2 by funneling Black voters—who represent approximately one-third of the state’s population—into a single majority-Black district out of a total of six.
In 2024, lawmakers took action by adopting a remedial plan that established a second district of this kind. However, white voters took legal action, claiming that the adjustments constituted an unconstitutional racial gerrymander, and a district judge ruled in their favor.
The case, initially presented last March, has returned, as the justices have requested new briefs regarding the constitutionality of Section 2.
Last summer, Louisiana changed its position, now advocating for the Court to restrict or abolish race-conscious districting. Black voters who launched the initial challenge stood by the remedial map, asserting that it effectively addresses the documented dilution of minority voting power.
Conservative justices displayed hesitation to completely overturn Section 2, a provision established in 1965 and reinforced in 1982 to prevent practices that deny minorities equal access to the electoral process.
Advertisement
In reference to the 2019 Rucho v. Common Cause decision, which prevented federal courts from intervening in partisan gerrymandering, Mooppan contended that states could justify their maps by citing valid partisan objectives, even when these objectives intersect with racial demographics.
This would enable mapmakers to emphasize Republican strengths, for example, without violating Section 2, provided the intent isn’t solely racial.
Chief Justice John Roberts, the author of the 2023 Allen v. Milligan ruling that requires the establishment of a second majority-Black district in Alabama, examined whether this framework is consistent with Allen and the Court’s Thornburg v. Gingles criteria.
The test mandates that plaintiffs demonstrate a minority group is not only sizable and cohesive but also experiences majority bloc voting that undermines their electoral candidates. Roberts appeared focused on aligning the proposal with established norms, steering clear of a complete transformation.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh, an influential voice in the Allen case alongside Roberts and the liberal justices, raised the possibility of a “sunset” clause for Section 2 remedies, referencing precedents that restrict race-based policies to temporary solutions.
Voting rights organizations aligned with the Democratic Party are already warning that the removal or restriction of Section 2 could empower Republican-led legislatures to change the boundaries of as many as 19 congressional districts to their advantage.
Fair Fight Action and the Black Voters Matter Fund argue that if Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act is invalidated, it could significantly increase the likelihood of Republicans maintaining control over the House of Representatives for years.
Advertisement
Research has identified 27 congressional seats nationwide that could be redrawn to benefit Republicans, contingent on the current legal and political landscape remaining unchanged.
Nineteen of these changes are directly tied to the potential loss of Section 2 protections.
As the nation awaits the Supreme Court ruling, there’s now a push in some states to consider creating their own version of a “Voting Rights Act.”
Zakiya Summers, a Democrat from Mississippi, and Johnny DuPree, a Democrat from the state senate, both introduced bills that would make a state-level version of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
The law would set up a Mississippi voting rights commission. This commission would have to give its approval before any changes to election policy or practice could be made in certain areas. It would also protect people who don’t speak English very well and add other protections.
'Guilty Of Fraud' - Hammer Dropped On Former First Lady Jill Biden During Live Fox News Segment
McEnany Accuses Jill Biden Of Misleading Americans About Debate Performance
Posted July 15, 2026
Former White House press secretary and Fox News host Kayleigh McEnany accused former first lady Jill Biden of misleading the American public about President Joe Biden’s condition following his widely criticized debate performance during the 2024 campaign.
McEnany made the remarks Thursday during an appearance on Fox News Channel’s “America’s Newsroom,” where she reacted to comments Jill Biden reportedly made in her upcoming book regarding the president’s performance during the debate that ultimately intensified questions about his age and fitness for office.
The discussion began when co-host Dana Perino referenced remarks Jill Biden made immediately following the debate.
At a campaign event after the debate, Jill Biden praised her husband’s performance.
“Joe, you did such a great job. You answered every question,” she said at the time.
Perino contrasted those comments with more recent claims attributed to Jill Biden and raised questions about the apparent inconsistency.
“So now we know that this is what she’s saying in her book,” Perino said. “And the question I would love to ask her is where are you lying then or now?”
McEnany responded by arguing that Jill Biden’s reaction following the debate was inconsistent with her more recent descriptions of the event.
“It’s a great question,” McEnany said.
“That is not the reaction of someone who believes they just watched their husband have a stroke. It is an absolute lie.”
McEnany then accused the former first lady of concealing concerns about the president’s condition from voters.
“It was fraud,” she said.
“What she did fraud on the American public and she’s continuing it by saying she had never seen him like that before or after.”
The debate between Biden and President Donald Trump became a turning point in the 2024 election cycle, with many Democrats publicly expressing concern about Biden’s performance and his ability to continue his campaign.
Questions about Biden’s age and mental sharpness had circulated for years, but the debate intensified those concerns and fueled calls from some Democrats for him to step aside.
During the Fox News discussion, McEnany referenced comments previously made by veteran journalist Carl Bernstein regarding Biden’s condition behind the scenes.
“Dana, you all remember Carl Bernstein, who said he talked to people who knew Joe Biden, loved Joe Biden, supported Joe Biden, and they were adamant that what we saw was not a one-off,” McEnany said.
According to McEnany, Bernstein reported that individuals close to Biden had observed similar episodes before the debate.
“They said it had happened 15 or 20 times prior, him losing his train of thought,” she said.
McEnany also cited a fundraiser Bernstein reportedly described.
“He described a fundraiser where he froze up and seemed to have some type of rigor mortis,” she said.
“This is not something that was a one-off.”
McEnany argued that concerns about Biden’s condition were widely known among those close to him.
“This was well known,” she said.
She then questioned why Jill Biden continued publicly defending her husband following the debate.
“So why did she keep up with the fraud on the American people?” McEnany asked.
The former first lady has repeatedly defended her husband and rejected claims that she or members of his inner circle concealed concerns about his health, Breitbart News reported.
The debate over Biden’s condition became one of the defining political stories of the 2024 election cycle and continued after he ultimately left the race.
McEnany’s comments reflect ongoing scrutiny surrounding what Biden’s family, advisers and top Democratic officials knew about his condition and when they knew it.
Neither Jill Biden nor representatives for the former president immediately responded to McEnany’s latest remarks.
As new books and accounts from those involved continue to emerge, questions surrounding Biden’s final campaign and the decisions made by those closest to him remain a major topic of political debate.
