Archives for category: Elections

Trump has spent a lot of time rescuing, pardoning and trying to reward the people who joined him in attempting to overturn his election loss in 2020. He is a giant baby. He is a sore loser. He lost decisively, and he refuses to accept it. More than 60 federal and state courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, rejected his appeals because there was no evidence of election fraud.

Someday, with time, we will look back on Trump’s refusal to accept his defeat as a low point in our history. Of course, we will look at his two terms in office as the absolute nadir of our history, as a time he spent rolling back civil rights, environmental protections, international alliances, access to healthcare, defunding medical and scientific research, bullying universities, and censoring the mass media.

Trump bullied Governor Jard Polis of Colorado to free Tina Peters, and Polis succumbed:

Tina Peters, the former clerk convicted of participating in a scheme to chase election conspiracy theories promulgated by President Donald Trump, was released from prison Monday after the president successfully pressured Colorado’s Democratic governor into commuting her sentence.

Peters’ release was confirmed by the Colorado Department of Corrections. The state agency said it would have no more information about the 70-year-old inmate. Her sentence was shortened by Gov. Jared Polis last month after Trump waged a lengthy pressure campaign against the governor and his state.

Peters served less than a quarter of her nine-year sentence.

Peters was the first local election official to be charged with breaching security after the 2020 election. She snuck in an outside computer expert affiliated with My Pillow Chief Executive Mike Lindell — who himself denied that Trump lost the White House in 2020 — and the person copied the county’s Dominion Voting Systems computer server as it was updated in 2021.

Peters then joined Lindell onstage at a “cybersymposium” that promised to reveal proof that the election was rigged. Video and photos of the computer system upgrade, including passwords, were posted online. The move stoked false claims that voting machines were manipulated to steal the election from Trump.

Peters was convicted in 2024 of attempting to influence a public servant, conspiracy to commit criminal impersonation, violation of duty and other crimes by jurors in Mesa County, a Republican stronghold that supported Trump. An appeals court upheld her conviction in April, but ordered Peters to be resentenced because it said the judge who sent her to prison wrongly punished her for speaking out about election fraud.

Trump had championed Peters’ case, but because she was convicted under state law, he did not have the power to pardon her. Instead, the president pressured Polis to do so, lambasting him on social media and disinviting him to a White House meeting with other governors. The Trump administration also announced plans to dismantle the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Colorado and relocated the U.S. Space Command to Alabama.

Polis commuted Peters’ sentence on May 15. In a letter, he wrote that although Peters was convicted of serious crimes and deserved to spend time in prison, the sentence was “extremely unusual and lengthy” for a first-time non-violent offender.

Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold, a Democrat, called the move a “dark day for democracy” and said it amounted to “selling out our state’s justice system for Trump.”

The editorial board of The Dallas Morning News is conservative. But it is not MAGA. It does not traffic in lies and conspiracy theories. It adheres to a basic standard of civility, the kind that enabled members of different parties to compromise and occasionally agree on bipartisan legislation. Not now, but not so many years ago.

This is the editorial board’s view of the primaries on Tuesday.

Well, that was telling.  

Given a choice between John Cornyn, a man who spent his career governing as an honest, deeply conservative representative, or Ken Paxton, a man whose personal and professional dishonesty is so manifest that the mother of his own children can’t endorse him, Texas Republicans said, “we’ll take the second guy.” 

It somehow gets worse. Given the choice between Jim Wright, an experienced railroad commissioner who openly favored the oil and gas industry, or Bo French, a conspiracy-mongering bigot, Texas Republicans said, “give us the bigot.” 

We would set up the same comparison for the Texas attorney general runoff between “MAGA” Mayes Middleton and Chip Roy, except we wouldn’t know who to compare as the better of the two. Both debased themselves as lickspittles of the president while doing all they can to drive division against immigrants, Muslims and any other group they could demonize to stir fear and hatred as a path to power. 

What happened Tuesday night in Texas tells us so much about what the deep base of the Texas Republican Party has become. It should shock every person of good conscience and be an awakening for conservatives who still believe this party and its current leadership can serve the traditions of independence and liberty that Texas was founded upon. 

Because it’s Ken Paxton’s Texas GOP now. It’s Trump’s Texas. Remember that Paxton is the man Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick saved from what looked like certain conviction in an impeachment trial right after a $1 million donation and $2 million loan from West Texas Christian conservatives flowed Patrick’s way. This is the man whose top deputies, people who devoted their lives to movement conservatism, decided he was so corrupt they abandoned their careers to alert law enforcement. This is a man who pretends to be the moral authority of this state even after his wife filed for divorce on “biblical grounds.” Read that as infidelity. That’s your Texas Republican Party now. 

Regular readers of this page hopefully know a few things about us by now.  

We seek to support a thoughtful conservatism grounded in limited government, the expansion of free enterprise, the power of capital to lift people into wealth, the fundamental importance of faith and family to living a good life, a belief in an ordered society where laws are respected and enforced from the border to Main Street, and a strong suspicion of movements that would upend the traditions that have defined our country and our common humanity for generations. 

We hope for a democracy where good, if imperfect, people with different points of view are elected, take office and find ways to work out their differences through compromise that respects both the majority’s will and the minority’s rights. 

We believe the founders of our nation and our state would have wanted nothing less. That was the sort of natural freedom they sought to enshrine, a freedom rooted in the protection of individual rights and the promotion of shared responsibility for democratic norms and a basic decency toward one another. 

The people who are being elected to represent Republicans in this state cannot represent that sort of conservatism. They cannot represent the values that a majority of Texans believe in. 

Don’t take our word for it. Take theirs. Paxton and Middleton have told us repeatedly where their loyalty lies. It is not to the people of the state they seek to represent. It is to a man who governs not on the basis of conservative principles but on his daily whims. This is the fundamental promise these candidates have made to Texas voters. We will do whatever President Donald Trump tells us to do. 

John Cornyn tried to play this game. We can’t help but believe he will spend a lot of days in regret for what the end of his political career looks like. He did all he could to appease the president’s ego, and it wasn’t enough. So many good conservatives have had to learn the hard way that it is never enough. He will take and take until there is nothing left.  

We try to imagine one of the men who founded this state, one of those who rode into Texas when it was still a wild and dangerous land where people had the thought that, if they could survive, they could prosper. We try to imagine the sacrifices along the way, the hard winters and blistering summers. The decision to fight for independence from Mexico. The stubborn streak of self-reliance and persistent belief that Texas is still, somehow, its own place. 

None of that squares with who these men are. The men who won the GOP’s nomination Tuesday night are not their own men. They are, by their own admission, wholly servile. It is their entire political identity. The tough talk veneer goes only as far as Trump will let them go. There is nothing in them that is independent, that is their own, that is Texan. 

We know that most of the people who cast their ballots for Paxton, Middleton and French don’t give a fig what this page says. So many of them long ago tuned out people who still insist on asking questions, who see places for compromise, who believe our neighbors who might be a little different from us are still our neighbors, deserving of our respect and love. 

There is a word for what happened in this state Tuesday, and that is shameful. 

Texas deserves better than people who truck in lies and bigotry. But that’s what we got. 

Where we go from here is hard to say.  

My observations:

If there are enough old/fashioned, principled Republicans and independents, Texas has a good chance of turning blue. At the top of the Democratic ticket are two excellent candidates: James Talarico for the U.S. Senate and Gina Hinojosa for Governor.

Texans need fresh leadership. It needs leaders who have not been bought by oil money and White Christian nationalists. It needs leaders who want to solve problems, not engage in bigotry and culture wars.

Talarico would bring a fresh air of honesty and candor to D.C. and a deep commitment to improving the lives of working people and those in need. Hinojosa has the same commitment to helping those who need help and a passionate commitment to public schools. Her own children are public school students. Like many states, Texas has underfunded its public schools and its teachers. Hinojosa understands that Texas needs to educate all its children well. That’s at the top of her agenda.

Talarico and Hinojosa have a chance to change Texas. They represent youth and the future.

Jonathan V. Last of The Bulwark explained why Trump’s $1.776 billion slush is such a powerful tool for a crafty mob/boss.

Last wrote:

We’ve been thinking too narrowly about the $1.776 billion pot of taxpayer money that Donald Trump will soon control.

Most people assumed Trump would use it to pay off meathead insurrectionists, sort of a . . . treason stimulus.

Absolute gold.

Others believed that while Dummkopf MAGA might get a couple bucks here and there, the real money would be funneled to Trump family members and organizations.

But the Slush Fund from Hell—or whatever we’re calling it—is much more useful than any of that. It’s a multitool for corruption and maintaining MAGA discipline. Let me explain.


You have to respect Trump as an innovator. He saw that private lawsuits could be used as a way to legalize bribery and extortion—that’s what his defamation suits against CBS and ABC were.¹

Trump understood that while it might be illegal to go to CBS and ABC and demand that they pay him protection money, he could use a civil lawsuit as justification for creating a private legal contract that amounted to the same thing.

He further understood that if he filed a civil suit against the U.S. government and then became president, he could direct the government to settle with him on whatever terms he desired.

These are ideas which seem to have occurred to no one in American history prior to Trump. When it comes to corruption, the man knows how to think laterally.

So what sort of lateral uses could he make of a $1.776 billion fund which he controls completely? There are two big ones.


The obvious one is bribery. As we discussed last week, Trump can turn the fund into fee-for-service. You give him a thing he wants—a vote, a certification, a report—and then you get compensated at a later date.

But the subtle one is something else altogether. It’s about holding people on side.


One of the striking design details about the fund is that it disappears just before Trump leaves office. It is sunset so that it can never be directed by anyone other than Trump.

Think about how this is likely to work in practice.

If you were Trump, would you pay out money before your last days in office? 

Because I would not.

The optimum strategy is for Trump to pay a couple people early, just to validate the fund’s existence. After that he should encourage anyone and everyone to apply for compensation. And then he should wait.

Because open applications give him leverage over people.

As a for-instance: Two days ago Mike Flynn almost criticized Trump about making a deal with Iran. Do you think people will be willing to do even that much if they have compensation applications pending that could be worth millions of dollars?


Another reason Trump should wait to disburse funds is that he can implicitly promise to pay more than $1.776 billion. Think about it: $1.776 billion is a lot of money, but it’s only 1,700 million-dollar portions. If Trump starts paying people right away, the fund gets drawn down and people start to realize that maybe they won’t get anything from it.

But if the nut is largely intact, everyone in MAGA world can dream. Trump can pass out tens of billions of dollars worth of promises—Don’t worry, we’ll take care of you; you just have to wait a little bit longer—with everyone thinking that, since he’s going to pay up at the very end, there’s enough cash for them to get theirs.


Second-term presidents become politically weak when members of their party realize that their incentives are diverging from the POTUS.

Maybe the POTUS is becoming unpopular, so candidates need to distance themselves from him. Maybe party elites are thinking about the future and how to take over once the old man is gone.

The slush fund is a tool to fix that problem. It’s the promise of a tangible reward for Republicans to stay on his side. Be nice to him. Do what he asks. Don’t freelance. And maybe there’s a pot of gold for you at the end of the rainbow.


The slush fund won’t work on everyone. Some Republicans will be secure enough that they don’t need Trump’s money. Some will be ambitious enough that they’re willing to forgo the uncertain promise of a payout for a shot at the title.

But it’ll work for some of them. It will encourage them to modulate what they say. And within the rest of the Republican ecosystem, having more people on-side than there otherwise would be will have a force-multiplier effect. Seeing people stick with Trump will cause more people to stick with Trump.

Watch what happens in the coming days with the Iran deal. See how many defections there are. And then ask yourself: How many of those people who suddenly get with the program are hoping to apply for some compensation from their president?

The U.S. Supreme Court was designed to be a separate branch of government, the one that monitored the adherence to the Constitution by the other two branches. The Court disappoints sometimes, but it has never been as nakedly partisan as it is under Chief Justice John Roberts. The far-right wing of the Republican Party has a reliable friend at the Court.

It’s hard to say which of their decisions is the worst.

Some might say it was their recent decision to overturn the Voting Rights Act, which will sharply reduce the number of Black members of Congress.

Some might say it was their decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, despite promises by most of them not to do so.

Some would say it is their decisions that tear down the wall of separation between church and state.

I say it was their decision in Trump v. United States, in which the majority decided that the president was above the law and could not be charged for anything he did while in office as part of his official duties. We can be certain that the same court would claim that whatever he did was part of his official duties, including tearing down the East Wing of the White House without seeking anyone’s approval.

Representative Steve Cohen of Tennessee has had enough. He introduced six articles of impeachment of Chief Justice John Roberts. Good for him!

Scott Dworkin reported on his blog:

Rep. Steve Cohen

Rep. Steve Cohen has represented Memphis, Tennessee, for 19 years. Republicans cut his district into pieces, and he decided to retire—but not without a fight.

Cohen told The Dworkin Report in 2019: “[Trump’s] life has been one crime after another. One misdeed after another. One lie after another.” Now he’s applied that same standard to the man who put Trump above the law.

On May 21, Cohen introduced six articles of impeachment against Chief Justice John Roberts. Charges include allowing the Court to become a partisan weapon, placing the president above the law, endorsing a corrupt campaign finance system, and failing to recuse himself while his wife collected millions recruiting attorneys for law firms with cases before the Court.

Cohen was direct: “Under Chief Justice Roberts’ stewardship, [The Supreme Court] is now understood as biased: with decisions designed to benefit Republicans at the expense of representative government.”

They gerrymandered Cohen’s district to silence him. John Roberts now has six articles of impeachment to his name—an award no other Chief Justice has ever received in US history.

South Carolina has 7 Congressional seats. one is held by a person who is Black, Rep. Jim Clyburn. Trump urged the South Carolina legislature to redistrict and turn every seat into a Republican district.

The SC House passed a bill to redistrict. The SC Senate rejected the bill. Twelve Republicans joined 12 Democrats to say no.

Some said they wouldn’t pass the bill because early voting had started and the election was underway. Some must have felt that it was wrong to eliminate the only district with a Black Congressman.

Whenever any Republican has the spine to say NO to the Grifter-in-Chief, it’s a good day for democracy.

Back in the midst of the War in Vietnam, protestors used to torment President Lyndon B. Johnson by chanting, “Hey, hey, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today?” Johnson became President after President Kennedy’s assassination, then was elected by a landslide in 1964. He had an ambitious domestic agenda, which sailed through Congress, but then got ensnared in pursuing the war, which was a disaster.

As soon as Donald Trump was re-elected, he invited his billionaire friend to slash the federal government. Trump created a fictional “department” called the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), headed by Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy. Vivek soon left to run for governor of Ohio.

Musk and his little group of computer nerds ransacked the agencies, fired thousands of career employees, and copied confidential files from Social Security and the Treasury Department. Throughout this daring attack on our government, Republican majorities in Congress remained silent.

One of the first agencies killed by Musk was U.S. AID, which supplied food and medicine to impoverished people around the world. Musk celebrated his success and told the world that he had used a jeweled chainsaw to kill a program that saved lives and that bought billions of dollars of grain from American farmers.

It’s been reported that DOGE saved very little money, that many government agencies that lost employees had to rehire some, pay severance to others, and that dramatic savings never materialized.

And now we know that whatever savings were realized by Musk’s brief foray have been totally wiped out by the cost of the war in Iran.

What remains of the work of Musk and his DOGE?

Millions of deaths in countries where people died because U.S. AID stopped sending aid. Not only did people die of starvation and preventable diseases, but violence followed the AID cuts.

Science Advisor, published by Science magazine, reported:

The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) was once the world’s largest provider of foreign aid. Between 2021 and 2024, the agency—which operated in more than 100 countries—is estimated to have saved some 91 million lives, about a third of which were children under five. But just days after President Donald Trump took office in 2025, his administration began rapidly dismantling the organization. The sweeping cuts dealt a “ tectonic” blow to clinical trials around the globe, devastated agricultural research, and triggered a “ bloodbath” for HIV/AIDS relief programs. According to one study, this sudden removal of foreign aid could lead to more than nine million preventable deaths by 2030. Now, new research published in Science suggests that the destruction of USAID has also unleashed a wave of violent conflict across Africa.

Scientists merged two datasets, one that mapped worldwide foreign aid disbursements and another recording violent events. Cuts to USAID, the team reports, were associated with significant increases in violent conflict, armed clashes, protests and riots across a large swath of Africa. The effects began immediately after USAID withdrawal, persisted for months, and were most pronounced in areas that had previously relied the most on aid from the United States. “With the USAID shutdown, there was a rapid increase in the likelihood of violence, the severity of violence, and the lethality of violence,” study co-author Austin L. Wright told 404 Media.

As economist Axel Dreher wrote in a related Science Perspective, the findings reveal “the effect of a sudden and unexpected disruption,” which, beyond just removing resources, can open the door to civil unrest by interrupting ongoing initiatives and eroding trust in local governments. “A sudden cut can be destabilizing even if the aid program being cut was inefficient or unsustainable in the long run.”

Here is a link to the full paper.

The U.S. Supreme Court recently rendered the Caillais decision, which effectively gutted the historic Voting Rights Act. As soon as the decision was released, the Southern states that once formed the Confederacy began to redraw district lines to eliminate Black representatives from Congress and the state legislature. In some of those former-slave states, there is likely to be no Black representation of the state in Congress.

The Confederacy rises again, thanks to the six members of the Supremr Court appointed by Republicans. Once again, Justice Clarence Thomas votes to strip rights from Black people.

Please read this commentary by teacher Ken Bernstein. He includes a speech by President Lyndon B. Johnson, explaining why the Voting rights Act was necessary for our democracy.

This decision makes the case for Supreme Court reform, either by enacting an age limit, term limits, or enlarging the Court.

Jamelle Bouie, columnist for The New York Times, wrote several columns (see here) about the decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to eviscerate the Voting Rights Act in its Callais decision. This one is titled “The Law They Hate Was a High Point of Our History.” The high court majority, six hard-right Republicans, decided that partisan redistricting is just fine, but redistricting that takes account of race is not. Thus, a state legislature dominated by one party can justly produce a voting map that gives every seat to its own party, but it may not permit districts created to encourage representation of racial minorities.

In the wake of the Callais decision, some states of the Confederacy quickly carved up districts to eliminate seats held by Democrats and by Blacks. Some of these states will have only white Republicans in Congress.

Bouie wrote:

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 wasn’t the top-down dictate of a rogue, liberal Supreme Court — if such a thing has ever existed.

It wasn’t the brainchild of out-of-touch bureaucrats in Washington, nor was it some kind of martial settlement imposed on the states of the former Confederacy.

It was, instead, an achievement of the most effective social movement of the postwar United States. The Voting Rights Act revitalized American democracy and stands as one of its great achievements.

This, somehow, has been lost in the discourse around the Supreme Court’s decision in Louisiana v. Callais. The court’s clear hostility to the law, as well as the glee with which conservative Republicans have dismantled the South’s majority-minority congressional districts in its wake, makes it seem as if the V.R.A. was a handcuff placed on American politics by some outside force.

The truth is that the Voting Rights Act was conceived, crafted and passed in order to further realize American democracy. And it was, itself, the product of an explosion of democratic energy.

The V.R.A. was forced onto the national agenda by the tireless work of the grass roots activists in the Civil Rights Movement, who struggled, bled and put their lives on the line in a fierce fight to secure their fundamental rights as Americans. It was signed into law by a president who had won election in one of the largest landslides in American history. It was subsequently reauthorized by Congress, after Congress, after Congress, after Congress.

The most recent reauthorization in 2006 was nearly unanimous, and there was broad support from the public — so much that to justify the Supreme Court’s attack on the law in Shelby County v. Holder, Chief Justice John Roberts had to fabricate a constitutional doctrine about the “equal sovereignty” of states, and Justice Antonin Scalia had to characterize the reauthorization as an unfair “racial entitlement” that politicians would never remove for fear of backlash.

If there is any single law that you could plausibly say represents the general will of the American people, it might be one that was reaffirmed nearly every decade for 40 years by the people’s representatives.

This isn’t just a historical point or a piece of idle trivia. It is essential. And it gets to what is so egregious about the court’s campaign against the law.

The Voting Rights Act was an attempt by the people of the United States, affirmed across two generations of voters and lawmakers, to make good the 15th Amendment to the Constitution — itself the hard fought product of war and reconstruction. It was an attempt to wield the authority of the federal government to secure the fundamental right to vote as well as the fundamental right to representation. It stood for substantive equal protection — the chance to make democracy real.

The V.R.A. was not, contra John Roberts and the rest, an expression of colorblindness, indifferent to the social realities of the United States. It did not pretend to treat supposed neutrality as truly neutral, nor did it place racial inequality outside the remit of the Constitution. And it was not, as this court would have it, the bland expression of a bloodless commitment to anti-discrimination. In fact, it was the most significant attempt in this country’s history to realize the promise of political equality.

The Voting Rights Act has more — much more — democratic legitimacy than this Supreme Court has ever enjoyed. After all, most of this court’s conservative majority was appointed by presidents who entered office as winners of the Electoral College but not the popular vote.

It is that relative difference in democratic legitimacy that makes this court’s voting rights jurisprudence so offensive.

Those voting rights rulings, from Shelby County v. Holder in 2013 to Callais in 2026, come from a court that has placed itself above the people at large. It is a court that will, according to its whims, ignore the clear commands, directions and intent of Congress. It is a court that treats voters and legislators as errant children to be corralled and disciplined by wise jurists. It is a court that doesn’t answer hard constitutional questions as they arise as much as it imposes constitutional meaning based on its narrow interests and ideological preoccupations.

It is a court that is trying to shape the political system to its liking, despite the claims of the chief justice, with no limits other than its partisan preferences. It is a court, in other words, that is wielding a cramped and parochial vision of the Constitution against American democracy, rather than treating the Constitution as a tool for realizing our democratic aspirations.

There have been many frustrating decisions from this Supreme Court. Louisiana v. Callais may not even be its worst decision — that prize might still go to Trump v. United States, where the chief justice conjured, out of thin air, an anti-constitutional doctrine of criminal immunity for the president.

Callais, however, might be the most emblematic of this court’s decisions: a flashing warning that our democracy is being crushed underneath the imperial authority of an arrogant and reactionary juristocracy. We can either discipline that court — and put it in its place — or accept our fate as its subjects.

Dan Froomkin writes “Press Watch,” a blog that covers the media. In this post, he criticizes the mainstream media for treating the U.S. Supreme Court’s Callais decision as a partisan issue. It is that, but it is at bottom a decision that destroys Black political power. It allows states to divvy up districts in ways that eliminates Black representation. And former Confederate states wasted no time in breaking up districts that elect Blacks to Congress.

He writes:

States across the South are redrawing election maps to eliminate majority-Black congressional districts.

Much of the major-media coverage is casting this in purely political terms – as just another part of the partisan battle for the House in November.

So for example, a May 9 Associated Press article headlined “What to know about the latest wave of changes to congressional districts,” started off this way:

The remaking of the U.S. political map accelerated this week in courts and legislatures, all of it in this round expected to boost Republicans in their attempt to keep control of Congress in November’s elections.

A May 13 New York Times article started off like this:

Gov. Brian Kemp of Georgia on Wednesday called lawmakers back to the capital next month to redraw the state’s legislative districts for the 2028 election cycle, and to work on changes to the state’s voting system.

The call for a special session, which will begin on June 17, comes as Southern lawmakers have been rushing to reconfigure congressional maps to be more favorable to Republicans for this year’s midterms in response to the recent Supreme Court decision that weakened the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

But in the South, the significance of redistricting goes far beyond any partisan issue.

So let me rewrite that for you:

In a stunning display of racism, white Republican leaders throughout the South are stripping Black people of their franchise in order to retain political power.

The catalyst was a 6-3 Supreme Court decision on April 29 that gutted the Voting Rights Act of 1965, landmark legislation that gave Black people the opportunity to elect candidates of their choice.

Six right-wing justices insisted that intentional voting discrimination is a thing of the past. Southern legislators immediately responded by redrawing election boundaries to dilute the Black vote, in many cases making it virtually impossible for Black people to be elected to Congress.

What has happened in a matter of days amounts to a wrenching reversal of 60 years of racial progress — a revival of the Jim Crow era when Black people had no political power, no matter their number.

On a personal level, Black voters in the South are struggling with the repercussions of having one of their essential rights being brutally ripped away from them.

In states like Georgia, Louisiana, and Mississippi, where they make up more than 30 percent of the population, Black Americans will have little to no say in who is elected to Congress. And as the effects of the court decision trickle down to the local level, they may get shut out of some of those elections as well.

Meanwhile, the leaders of the white nationalist movement known as MAGA are celebrating. In some cases, their racism is expressed openly. “For too long, Tennessee politics has been dominated by cosmopolitan communists and race hustlers imposing their corrupt will on a deeply rural and conservative state,” Representative Andy Ogles of Tennessee posted on social media.

For the authoritarian leaders of MAGA, the dilution and nullification of Black votes is a crucial step in their quest to remain in power — even as most voters have turned against them.

MAGA’s future depends on suppressing the votes of groups that don’t support its white-male dominated Christian nationalist ideology. Reducing minority representation, to them, is essential to destroying majority rule. Destroying Majority rule is how they win.

Gerrymandering that leads to Southern states being almost entirely represented by white, right-wing elected officials dramatically improves MAGA’s political calculus. In the short run, it improves the odds of retaining Congress in November. MAGA’ strategy to keep the White House in 2028 includes yet more Black disenfranchisement, through voter intimidation, deception and disruption.

So far, MAGA’s plan is working, raising the prospect that Trump and his successors may remain in power for the foreseeable future.

But another way to characterize the current drive to disenfranchise Black voters is that it is the desperate – and maybe final — act of a white nationalist party that is being rejected by increasing number of voters.

For American journalists, this ought to be epic, tectonic stuff, worth aggressive and ongoing coverage.

And keep in mind that in the mid- to late-20th century, the struggle for civil rights was the dominant story in American politics, the subject of vast amount of journalism, some of it heroic. Ultimately it was journalism that brought the civil rights marchers into the American public’s breakfast nooks and living rooms, forcing the country to reckon with a brutal and sordid history of racism, and, eventually, try to move beyond it.

But today, as in the early days of the civil rights movement, too much of the media is averting its eyes from the experience of Black people. Too much coverage treats this extraordinary and consequential display of racism and societal regression as if it were just an ordinary political battle.

Some Reporters Get It

Some mainstream journalists have recognized the racial element of redistricting, and their work provides models of better, more appropriate coverage.

As evidence that you can address both the racial and political nature of the Republican moves in a news article, consider Emily Cochrane’s reporting in the Times about a new Tennessee map “that slices up Memphis to scatter Black voters into neighboring districts, a move intended to eliminate the state’s last Democratic House seat.” After several paragraphs of partisan framing, she wrote:

Democrats, noting that about two-thirds of Memphis voters are Black, said it was a blatant attack on hard-won gains for fair representation in a state shaped by slavery, segregation and the civil rights movement.

She described the scene in the state capitol in Nashville during the special session to pass the new map:

Black lawmakers delivered emotional speeches about family members, friends and colleagues who endured segregation or struggled with barriers to voting in the 1960s. State Senator Charlane Oliver of Nashville, a Democrat, stood on her desk right before the vote, holding a banner reading “No Jim Crow 2.”

And she quoted an attendee:

“My race is who I am and it informs my politics,” said Danyelle Norment, 30, who woke up early to drive in from Memphis. “It’s not something that’s separate or can be left behind.”

She added, “it’s really, really important to have folks who can understand our lived experience.”

In the Washington Post, Justin Jouvenal profiled Press Robinson, an 88-year-old civil rights pioneer. “That law passed in 1965 was the bedrock of improvement of life in America for people of color,” Robinson told Jouvenal.

Now, Robinson fears a wipeout of Black political power, much like the one that occurred after Reconstruction.

“History is now repeating itself,” he said.

On PBS Newshour, Liz Landers covered the story as part of the network’s “Race Matters” series, bringing us the voice of Leona Tate, a civil rights activist:

So now we move backwards with the Supreme Court decision that will go down as one of the most racist rulings in our nation’s history.

Tate was 6 years old when she became one of the first students to desegregate a New Orleans school, Landers noted. Then Tate continued:

I had no idea what racism was at that time, but I knew by third grade that it was the color of my skin that made a difference. I just can’t believe that it’s still happening 66 years later. It’s cheating, to me. That’s how I feel. It’s really cheating. And it’s really illegal.

It does bring back that feeling from a long time ago, and it’s not a good feeling.

Read the Black Press

As in the 1950s and 60s, the Black press is revealing what the white press is slow to acknowledge.

Brandon Tensley, writing for Capital B, explained “How One Supreme Court Ruling Is Rewriting 60 Years of Voting Protections.” “Most Black Americans reside in the South,” he wrote. Lawmakers in former slaveholding states dismantling majority-Black districts “could change the balance of power and the complexion of leadership in this country.”

Gerren Keith Gaynor, writing for TheGrio, headlined the fact that “Black legislators lead the resistance as Republicans rush to redraw maps after gutting of Voting Rights Act.” “It’s disturbing and disgusting to see how this administration and the white leadership here are trying to codify white supremacy and dilute Black political voting power because that’s what’s happening,” Tennessee State Rep. Justin J. Pearson told Gaynor. “I think none of us should make any mistake about what is going on. The attempt to remove Black representation and our ability to elect representatives of our choice is one of the most significant attacks on Black voter participation and Black voter representation since the end of Reconstruction.”

TheRoot published a viral video of Louisiana resident Marshan Camese delivering a powerful speech at a state Senate hearing over redistricting. “I believe the country as a whole is rebuking your party. Y’all are in a death spiral,” he said. “That’s why y’all have to redistrict. That’s why y’all have to cheat.” MAGA, he said, “is the last breath of the Confederacy.”

Civil rights leaders are headed to Alabama tomorrow for a rally they’re calling “All Roads Lead to the South.” As I wrote in my Heads Up News newsletter this week, this could be the birth of a movement that combines the battle for voting rights with the battle for democracy.

“Black folks from across the country are gonna be busing in, flying in, to show up and to really begin organizing to turn out in the November election,” Wisdom Cole, the Senior National Director of Advocacy for the NAACP, told TheRoot. “This is such an important moment to activate all of us.”

Note: the rally in Alabama was held last Saturday.

Trump just pulled of his biggest heist of taxpayer money by settling a bogus lawsuit. He had sued the Treasury Department/IRS for the unauthorized release of his tax return, then agreed to settle if the Department of Justice created a fund to compensate anyone who had been injured by the “weaponization” of the law under President Biden.

Trump was projecting. Biden did not “weaponize” the Department of Justice. Trump did, directing his Attorney General to prosecute his political enemies, like Leticia James, James Comey, and John Brennan.

If anything, Merrick Garland was too timid in prosecuting the insurrectionists who tried to overturn the 2020 election and far too slow to appoint Special Prosecutor Jack Smith, whose investigation ran out of time.

Andrew Egger of The Bulwark describes the details of Trump’s political slush fund.

Basically, he has full control of the money. And he dies not have to disclose the recipients.

Egger wrote:

When I wrote Friday about the news that Donald Trump was about to drop his $10 billion IRS lawsuit in exchange for the creation of a $1.776 billion taxpayer-cash slush fund for his allies who claim the Biden administration “weaponized” the law against them, I noted that nothing was yet set in stone. At that moment, it still seemed possible that this obscene settlement—Trump’s biggest, most lawless, most brazen theft of taxpayer cash yet—might yet give them cold feet.

But no: Yesterday, they made the thing official. In fact, it’s somehow even worse than advertised.

It’s impossible to overstate this basic fact: Everything about the settlement fund, from the circumstances of its creation to the claims it makes about its own enforcement, is deliberately structured to short-circuit all outside accountability, government oversight, or judicial review. As I wrote Friday, there was a reason Trump’s guys (who happened to be both the plaintiffs and the defendants in the case) were hustling to reach the settlement quickly: The judge in the IRS case had been signaling her suspicion that Trump and his government were not actually on opposite sides of the claim, suggesting she was considering throwing out the case altogether. If they wanted to carry out the heist, time was of the essence.

The Justice Department’s enforcement order, released yesterday, and the settlement terms released last night carry on in this dubious fashion. According to Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, the United States loses custody and control of the $1.776 billion the minute it hits the settlement account created for the purpose: “Once the funds are deposited into the Designated Account,” he wrote in the order, “the United States has no liability whatsoever for the protection or safeguarding of those funds, regardless of bank failure, fraudulent transfers, or any other fraud or misuse of the funds.”

Meanwhile, the terms of the settlement fund make clear that the money’s disbursement—which, again, Trump’s United States government is trying to wash its hands of any liability for—will be a complete black box. “The Anti-Weaponization Fund shall have the power to determine its own procedures for submitting, receiving, processing, and granting or denying claims,” the settlement reads. “The Anti-Weaponization Fund may make those procedures public in whole or in part, at its discretion.”

Not only can the fund’s members keep secret how they’re making disbursement decisions, they can also keep a lid on who’s getting paid. The requirements for this are astonishingly open-ended: “To be eligible for relief,” the settlement states, a claimant must merely “assert at least one legal claim stating that the claimant was a victim of Lawfare and/or Weaponization.” Meanwhile, the only person the fund’s administrations will be required to brief on who got how much money is the attorney general—in a “confidential written report,” and even then only quarterly.

The cherry on top of this shit settlement sundae is this claim: “Because the claims process is voluntary, there shall be no appeal, arbitration, or judicial review of claims, offers, or other determinations made by the Anti-Weaponization Fund,” which is stated to be “enforceable and challengeable solely by Plaintiffs, Defendants, and the United States”—in other words, by Trump, Trump, and Trump.

The first opportunity to head off this disaster seems already to have passed. Nearly a hundred Democratic lawmakers signed an amicus brief filed in court Monday urging the judge not to dismiss the case as the parties requested, but to insist on weighing in on the terms of the settlement. But Judge Kathleen Williams ruled in a brief order yesterday that she lacked the power to do this—the settlement agreement was never docketed in the case, she said, so she had no authority to adjudicate it.

Once again, then, Trump’s aptitude for unprecedented shamelessness seems to have exposed yet another piece of our government that ultimately runs on the honor system: If a corrupt president wants to dip into the Treasury for literally any purpose whatsoever, all he has to do is sue the government, then settle with himself outside of court to create a payout fund for whatever purpose he might desire.

“It is Congress who appropriates money and it is the executive who spends it,” Matt Platkin, the former attorney general of New Jersey who is representing the Democratic lawmakers in the suit, told The Bulwark yesterday. “Put aside all of the potential corruption with this case—if the president can just sue himself and then settle with himself . . . and then spend huge amounts of money outside of that appropriations process, why would any president ever go to Congress for money ever again?”

It’s a great point—and one that reminds us that, ultimately, the responsibility for reining in this rampaging president falls not with the courts, but with Congress. It is not just the courts but Congress as well that Trump is cutting out of the loop with his obscene and indefensible settlement. Even here, Trump requires at least the legislature’s tacit permission to spend this money: They could pass a bill today to block a penny of that money from going out the door. Because of the funhouse-mirror world we live in and the villainous, power-hungry president we have, that bill would need to have the supermajority support required to overcome a presidential veto, but they do still have the power, if only they were to choose to exercise it.

But that funhouse-mirror reality is enough to prove on its own that just blocking the money wouldn’t go far enough. Trump is not merely asserting the power to jailbreak $1.8 billion from the Treasury to parcel out to his fans and allies. He is trying to create an upside-down new status quo where his single say-so is enough to overturn the will of two thirds of Congress minus one on all spending matters that really, really matter to him. It’s utterly un-American. It’s emperor stuff. If they had a shred of dignity left, they’d impeach the son of a bitch today.