Polling experts Jim McLaughlin and Patrick Allocco told Newsmax on
Monday they both believe former reality TV star Spencer Pratt has a shot
to be Los Angeles' next mayor.
"Pratt is hitting all the right notes to win," Allocco, founder of Zoose Political Index, told "Finnerty." "He's running against an extremely unpopular incumbent."
Allocco noted Pratt, who previously starred on "The Hills," is
running against incumbent mayor Karen Bass and vowing to bring
competence to City Hall.
"Clean up the streets, fix the potholes, and deal with the homeless
situation," Allocco said. "He'll attract not only independents but
frustrated Democrats who are tired of defending dysfunction."
McLaughlin, co-founder of McLaughlin and Associates,
noted Bass has been polling with only 25% support.
"We have a saying in polling: Usually what an incumbent's got, that's
all they're going to get," McLaughlin said. "So you have about 75% of
the electorate ... voting against her."
McLaughlin noted that a labor union ad attacking Pratt for opposing
homelessness and supporting the hiring of more police officers is likely
to backfire on Bass.
"It basically says that ... Spencer Pratt supports a bunch of
commonsense solutions to our problems," McLaughlin said. "But it just
goes to show you how desperate she is."
Of all the cards they love to play, the Democrats' favorite
undoubtedly has been the race card, which they've played with near-total
impunity for decades.
We've seen that a lot in the aftermath of the Supreme Court decision in the Louisiana v. Callais
case, which ruled that congressional redistricting based solely on race
is unconstitutional. Democrats have made a lot of references, for
example, to what they describe as the "new Jim Crow South," while
leaving out the inconvenient fact that Jim Crow laws, as they are widely
understood, were put in place by Democrats.
California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) was among the many who deliberately used racially charged language to try to stoke fears, tweeting that
"Confederate states are rushing through rigged maps to erase Black
districts off the map," when he knows good and darned well that the
"Confederate states" designation is a thing of the past, not the
present.
Not
to be outdone, an infamous Tennessee woketivist who also happens to be a
member of the state legislature did some racial fan-flaming of his own,
with a little help from the Very Online Left and a photojournalist with
The Tennessean newspaper.
It involves state Rep. Justin Pearson (D-Memphis), who engaged in multiple meltdowns after the General Assembly passed
a new map last Thursday that, if it stands, would effectively ruin any
chance he might have of winning the primary for the 9th Congressional
District, currently held by Democrat Steven Cohen, let alone win the
seat itself outright.
In the photo below, we see Pearson
strategically posing in front of the Sergeant at Arms as he is prevented
from entering a Senate committee meeting:
This
image by Pulitzer Prize-finalist photographer Nicole Hester for The
Tennessean shows a Capitol Sergeant at Arms blocking Rep. Justin
Pearson’s (D-Memphis) entry into a Senate Committee meeting where
discussion of remapping his congressional district was being considered.
pic.twitter.com/w4TXTqTu1y
Naturally, leftist influencers and their followers jumped all over
the image as being symbolic of southern white authority figures denying a
black man a seat at the table. This purported lawyer was one of many
who were fooled:
The Tennessean newspaper lovingly helped set the
narrative for such hot takes with how they framed the photo in a news
article highlighting photographer Nicole Hester's work.
"All of
her photos from this past week share a visceral quality that harkens
back to some of the iconic imagery from the civil rights movement," they
wrote.
As
of this writing, the tweet below, which also includes the photo, has
over 20,000 retweets, with Pearson being one of them who pushed it along
(language warning):
There is so much wrong here that it's hard to know where to start.
As
discerning readers probably picked up on already, it was a meeting of a
state Senate committee, not a House committee. Pearson serves in the
House, not the Senate. He was not being blocked from entering the House
floor.
Secondly, he wasn't being "stripped of office." He's
running for the 9th Congressional District seat, as noted above. He does
not "represent" that Congressional district (and probably wouldn't even
if the new map didn't get passed - Cohen has defeated many primary
challengers in the majority-minority district in the past, including
black challengers).
Third, he's not the only black lawmaker in the
Tennessee General Assembly. His fellow woketivist, Rep. Justin Jones
(D-Nashville), serves alongside him in the House. He was seen on video burning a paper version of the Confederate flag amid the redistricting debate. There is also Rep. Larry Miller (D-Memphis), and many others on the House and Senate side.
Social
media netizens mindlessly retweeting the photo with its false
description was one thing. But why did Pearson also share it while
knowing the facts didn't in any way match up with how it was described?
Because
for Democrats, the theatrics are the point, regardless of whatever the
reality of the matter actually is. This is especially true when it comes
to race, as Pearson has repeatedly demonstrated throughout his short, stunt-filled political career:
Such insulting antics might be one of the many reasons why more black
and Hispanic voters are shifting to either the Republican Party or to
an independent/unaffiliated registration, being sick and tired of the
lies and manipulation from Democrats who, in reality, will say and do
anything to retain power - including trampling all over the very groups of people they claim to want to help:
Mind
you, Obama was advocating for voters in Virginia to do this exact thing
last week when they erased two VRA districts in favor of political
gerrymanders. https://t.co/09rgjkHGO4
Democrats keep reaffirming who they really are, and voters should believe them.
Editor’s Note: The
2026 Midterms will determine the fate of President Trump’s America First
agenda. Republicans must maintain control of both chambers of Congress.
Even if it wasn't obvious before, it's certainly been abundantly
clear since the start of President Trump's second term in office that
Democrats have no qualms whatsoever about fanning the flames using
outright lies and purposeful deception to the point it spurs their
outrage mobs to take violent action in the name of "democracy" and
"social justice."
We saw it, for instance, in the early to mid part of 2025, when Tesla
dealerships and vehicle owners were being targeted by unhinged leftists
who took it upon themselves to either try to run folks off the road for
the crime of owning a Tesla or to shoot up and light showrooms on fire with incendiary devices because Elon Musk was a powerful ally of President Trump's.
Notably,
when prominent Democrats in Congress were asked to unequivocally
condemn such actions, they refused. Sen. Minority Leader Chuck Schumer
(D-NY), for example, was asked at the time about the incidents and
whether he condemned them. His response? "I can't talk about Tesla, but
Elon Musk is a disaster for America, and America knows it," Schumer stated, contributing to the anti-Musk hate.
Elected
Democrats, of course, are not the only ones who deliberately stoke
divisions along familiar lines that have the net effect of putting
targets on the backs of conservatives, something that we unfortunately
saw with the assassination of TPUSA co-founder Charlie Kirk.
Their
allies in the mainstream press and among the political/social
commentariat also eagerly do the dirty work, a disgraceful tactic that
was on full display during the Monday broadcast of The View, where,
unsurprisingly, the co-hosts were livid over the Virginia Supreme
Court's (SCOVA) ruling on Friday that effectively nullified the proposed 10-1 D/R congressional map Democrats wanted to put in place before the 2026 midterms.
What followed was a steady stream of mindless hot takes that held
little to no basis in fact, starting with Whoopi Goldberg (my reality
checks for The View will follow each clip):
The
View falsely claims Virginia Supreme Court told voters this about
redistricting: "They came and said, no, that's not what you want, we
changing it." In reality, Democrats violated the state's Constitution. pic.twitter.com/PgZ9GoYktv
— Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) May 11, 2026
Reality Check: What
the court actually ruled was that the process state Democrats used to
put their gerrymander referendum on the ballot was a violation of
Virginia's Constitution. The full ruling can be read here.
Next was this, also from Whoopi:
I
mean, it's kind of crazy when the party says, 'you know, we care about
voters' rights and people are cheating and we are in there, we're going
to make sure they don't,' and then they kind of cheat. This feels like a
cheat.
"This feels like a cheat." Still
ignoring how Democrats violated Virginia's Constitution, Whoopi
suggests Republicans are the ones cheating in elections and claims it's
voter suppression:
WHOOPI GOLDBERG: I mean, it's kind of crazy when the party says, 'you know, we care about… pic.twitter.com/LUdNtVVje3
— Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) May 11, 2026
Reality Check:
This was not a "cheat." The Virginia Supreme Court explained exactly
why the ruling came after voters went to the polls to vote on the
referendum - because of arguments the Commonwealth's legal team
previously made (page 7 from the ruling):
Here
is Matthew Seligman, representing Democrats/the Commonwealth position,
arguing at SCOVA that SCOVA was right to let the vote happen and that
the result of the vote is not relevant to the procedural issues. (Apr
27) https://t.co/TwIIn0e63Upic.twitter.com/OaPHxcoJ7G
Plot
twist: it's not only true that the reason that the Va. Supreme Court
didn't decide this prior to the election is that the Commonwealth begged
it not to do so, but the Commonwealth also conceded at oral argument
that "the people already voted" is irrelevant to the merits. https://t.co/L9rQXzvJKY
Phony
"conservative" co-host Alyssa Farah Griffin was up next, calling the
state's constitution a "technicality" and suggesting the justices were
following Trump's orders:
Of
course, faux conservative Alyssa Farah Griffin describes the Virginia
Supreme Court invoking the state's Constitution a "technicality that the
Supreme Court decided to get hung up on." She suggests the VA Supreme
Court was following Trump's orders. pic.twitter.com/zsSOiT79dN
— Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) May 11, 2026
Reality Check: The Virginia Constitution was not a
"technicality" here. This case literally hinged on what the Constitution
did or did not say related to the matter at hand. Further, these
justices were not "following" Trump's orders or anyone else's, for that
matter. Virginia justices are appointed to the state Supreme Court by the General Assembly,
Moments later, co-host Ana Navarro tried to argue that "Trump started this" when he urged Texas to redraw their maps in 2025:
Using
incendiary rhetoric that could incite more political violence, fake
Republican Ana Navarro claims it was Trump and Republican who were
"first to draw blood" in gerrymandering and redistricting. She claims
Democrats would never gerrymander if it wasn't for Republican doing… pic.twitter.com/JCyeNMayaq
— Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) May 11, 2026
Reality Check: Nope, Trump did not "start this." That was blue states like New York, as GOP House Speaker Mike Johnson (LA-04) noted on X, writing,
"House Democrats started the current mid-decade redistricting battle in
NY before the 2024 election. Now that it’s backfired on them, they are
pushing a stunning next step: nuke the judicial branch of government and
pack the court!" And convincing arguments could be made that they
started gerrymandering Republicans out of existence well before that.
To conclude the segment, all the co-hosts agreed that map changes
should be made in blue states like Illinois, Maryland, and elsewhere:
Hostin
goes on to call for MORE Democratic gerrymandering to disenfranchise
Republicans and remove their representation entirely. pic.twitter.com/NAegVt8ayY
— Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) May 11, 2026
Reality Check:
Ironically, these are some of the same states that have virtually wiped
out Republican representation within their congressional delegations
via gerrymandering, which preceded the current redistricting wars.
The
ladies of The View are certainly entitled to their own opinions, but
not their own facts. From start to finish, the segment on the SCOVA
ruling was one big lie-fest, telling exactly the kind of falsehoods that
inspire fanatics to travel to the homes of members of the judiciary to
try and kill them, as we saw with the attempted assassination of
conservative Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh prior to the U.S.
Supreme Court ruling to overturn Roe v. Wade in June 2022.
And
of the three attempts on President Trump's life, two of the suspects
used rhetoric in their notes that was identical to that used by Democrat
leaders to describe Trump.
I'd like to say that the lies have got
to stop before someone gets killed, but a prominent conservative voice
has already been killed due to blatant falsehoods told about him:
Charlie Kirk. We've reached a dangerous tipping point in this country
when it comes to the national dialogue, and it's gotta stop before even
more people are hurt or killed.
We’ll find out on May 14th whether the Supreme Court will consider this crazy last-ditch legal effort from Virginia Democrats to pass their gerrymandered map,
which the Virginia Supreme Court rejected for numerous violations of
the state constitution. There are procedures you must follow—Democrats
in Virginia did not. They’re arguing that there is a question about what
Election Day is, which makes it a federal question—that’s the hook. It
won’t work.
Again, this was a state Supreme Court ruling on a matter related to
the state constitution. There is no real federal question here. What is
funny is the legalese in the Democrats’ brief, loaded with cope, and
oozes temper tantrum vibes. You lost, guys. Deal with it. Salem radio
host and CNN contributor Scott Jennings went “Defcon-1” on these silly
games yesterday. Newsbusters’ Curtis Houck clipped the exchange:
.@ScottJenningsKY on Democrats going DEFCON-1 since losing their Virginia gerrymander...
“There's
a better chance of me sprouting wings and flying out of that window
over there than the United States Supreme Court dealing with this in any
way, because this is a state Supreme… pic.twitter.com/psPQNUUig1
There's
a better chance of me sprouting wings and flying out of that window
over there than the United States Supreme Court dealing with this in any
way, because this is a state Supreme Court ruling on a state
constitution. The U.S. Supreme Court doesn't deal with these kinds of
things, number one. Number two, the freakout in Virginia has been so
extreme. You even have Democrats over there who are saying they want to
effectively, politically decapitate the entire Virginia Supreme Court by
putting an age limit of 54 so they can get rid of every existing
justice and install people who will promise to rule a certain way on a
certain case. You know, they went from, oh, this is just a temporary map
thing to let's burn down the entire Virginia Supreme Court in about two
seconds over there in Virginia, which tells you all you need to know
about just how power hungry and corrupt the Democrats are in Virginia.
This is not going to work at the U.S. Supreme Court. And this whole
project of maximum warfare by Hakeem Jeffries is completely blown up in
their face.
[…]
I mean, in Virginia, you had Democrats in
Virginia who broke the law and broke the state constitution to try to
move a 6-5, fairly constructed map to a 10-1. They got struck down by
Democrats on their own Supreme Court, and now they want to decapitate an
entire branch of government over it? It's ridiculous.
Legal experts say the Supreme Court is expected to deny this motion unanimously.
Dems response after this embarrassing Virginia setback has been:
-Play dumb about the law (“why didn’t they rule before the vote?” -because you asked them not to!)
-Blame institutions for their own failures (MAGA judges! [nominated by Mark Warner?]) pic.twitter.com/336NDlrYbw
Former Democratic Rep. Katie Porter (D-CA) is having difficulty in her gubernatorial campaign. She strongly urged now-former Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA)
to withdraw after multiple reports of sexual misconduct and rape. Her
efforts paid off—Swalwell not only stepped down from the race but also
left public life. His career was essentially destroyed over a single
weekend last month.
Did that make things easier for her in this crowded California
governor's race? No. In fact, she’s barely reaching double digits in
some polls. While for some in this state, the ‘D’ next to their name is
enough to win most races. For an expensive statewide race, there’s no
guarantee, especially with stronger Democratic competition and solid
Republican candidates. Everyone has baggage: Tom Steyer is Mr. private
prison, and Xavier Becerra was known to be a terrible HHS secretary
under Joe Biden. Meanwhile, Porter is still grappling with questions of character and temperament.
Ms. Porter is accused of domestic abuse, with stories of pouring scalding hot potatoes on her ex-husband, yelling at staffers during interviews, and struggling to handle softball interviews.
That infamous clip of her yelling at a staffer was, at least according
to Ms. Porter, the result of Tom Steyer’s doing. It also doesn’t help
that she often jumps to conclusions, because even she couldn’t say for
sure. Instead, she offered a ‘people are saying’ line when pressed by
CNN’s Dana Bash.
Katie Porter blames Tom Steyer for the leaked video of her abusing a staffer.
In a phone interview with CBS News on Monday, President
Donald Trump stated his intent to suspend the federal gas tax
temporarily to provide relief from surging prices.
Following the outbreak of conflict in Iran on February 28th,
national gas prices have surged by more than 50%, reaching a national
average of $4.52 per gallon, according to data from AAA.
Market analysts suggest that these elevated fuel costs will likely
persist for the foreseeable future as Iran maintains its blockade of the
Strait of Hormuz. Although the United States remains physically
insulated from the disruption — with shipments through the strait
accounting for only about 7% of total U.S. crude oil imports — the
domestic market remains vulnerable to the global price volatility
triggered by the closure of this maritime chokepoint.
In response to this global economic pressure, President Trump announced during the CBS interview that he intends to work with Congress to suspend the federal gas tax for a temporary period.
While the 18.4-cent-per-gallon federal tax represents only a portion
of the overall cost, the administration is propping up the suspension as
a vital measure to provide immediate financial relief to U.S. consumers
while regional instability remains unresolved.
“I think it’s a great idea. Yup, we’re going to take off the gas tax
for a period of time, and when gas goes down, we’ll let it phase back
in,” Trump told CBS News.
Following President Trump’s recent endorsement of a federal gas tax
holiday, Senator Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) and Representative Anna Paulina
Luna (R-Fla.) also announced plans to introduce formal legislation in
their respective chambers to authorize the suspension.
Luna specifically noted that her bill was being drafted in response
to the president’s remarks, aiming to provide immediate relief to
families as national gas prices continue to surge.
Additionally, this policy shift was preceded by comments from U.S.
Energy Secretary Chris Wright, who suggested that the administration was
open to all ideas for lowering costs at the pump, effectively laying
the groundwork for the president’s subsequent proposal.
“All measures that can be taken to lower the price at the pump and
lower the prices for Americans, this administration is in support of,”
said Wright.
However, implementing such a suspension would require formal approval
from Congress to navigate the legal and fiscal challenges surrounding
the Highway Trust Fund (HTF), which relies on fuel taxes for infrastructure maintenance.
Currently, the federal excise tax adds 18.4 cents per gallon for
gasoline and 24.4 cents per gallon for diesel fuel. Proponents, the
majority of Americans, argue the pause is necessary for immediate
consumer relief — though critics have expressed concern about the
“long-term impact” on federal transportation revenue and the solvency of
national road projects.
Despite the financial strain on the aviation industry, where jet fuel
costs have more than doubled since the onset of the conflict in Iran,
the president dismissed the necessity of a federal bailout for domestic
air carriers. He noted that such a proposal has not been formally
presented and maintained that the airlines are currently performing
adequately despite the rising overhead.
Should Congress successfully pass the proposed legislation to suspend
the federal gas tax, the relief would be felt immediately at the pump.
The national average price for a gallon of gasoline would drop to
approximately $4.33, while the average price for a gallon of diesel
would decrease to $5.38.
President Donald Trump took a victory lap this week after a gut-punch
of a night for Indiana RINOs. The man who promised to reshape the GOP
made good on his warning: cross the redistricting fight, and you might
not have a job. The Indiana primaries showed exactly how sharp the claws
still are on Trump’s influence.
Trump’s High-Profile Taunt and Why It Mattered
President
Donald Trump used his social feed to celebrate a near sweep of
Trump-endorsed challengers in the Indiana state senate primaries. He
called out Republican senators who voted against a mid‑decade
congressional redistricting plan and cheered as challengers backed by
his allies and big outside money beat them. That public smackdown wasn’t
just petty politics — it sent a message to every Republican who thinks
standing up to the base has no price.
What Happened in Indiana: The Results and the Names
At
least five of seven targeted state senators who voted against the
redistricting plan lost their GOP primaries. The list of incumbents
defeated includes Dan Dernulc (SD 1), Linda Rogers (SD 11), Travis
Holdman (SD 19), James Buck (SD 21), and Greg Walker (SD 41). Only one
targeted incumbent survived, and one race was essentially tied. That
kind of punch to the state senate caucus changes the math for anyone
hoping to kill another redistricting effort.
Money, Muscle and the Fall of Leadership
This
was no local dust-up. Pro‑Trump groups and allied outside spending
poured roughly $8–9 million into the contests, making sleepy state
legislative primaries into a national battleground. The results have
some in the Indiana GOP whispering about leadership change and reopening
the redistricting fight. If state leaders want to keep their jobs,
they’ll have to reckon with a base that now demands loyalty and results.
Next Up: Louisiana, Kentucky and the Rest of the GOP
The
Indiana primaries aren’t an isolated tantrum — they’re part of a
national pattern. President Trump’s endorsement has already reshaped the
Louisiana Senate contest, where Representative Julia Letlow challenged
Senator Bill Cassidy with the president’s backing and the support of
Governor Jeff Landry. In Kentucky, Representative Thomas Massie still
looks strong against a Trump‑backed challenger, but his primary is
another test of whether independence or fealty wins in GOP primaries.
Republican officials in Washington, including Senate Majority Leader
John Thune, are watching — and so should every governor and lawmaker who
thinks they can safely ignore the base.
Conclusion: The Choice for Republicans
The
lesson from Indiana is plain and simple: standing between the voters
and a political priority like redistricting carries a real risk. The
president proved he can still shape primaries and punish dissenters. If
Republicans want to hold power and stop Democrat maps from taking over,
they’ll have to decide whether to fight for wins or keep rearranging
deck chairs. The Indiana results were a wake‑up call — loud, clear, and
accompanied by a celebratory trumpet from the man who still calls the
shots.
Last weekend’s Netflix Roast of Kevin Hart delivered the usual parade
of celebrity cheap shots, but Pete Davidson’s decision to punch down at
a man who was murdered crossed a line even many casual viewers found
shocking. Davidson cracked a gag linking comedian Tony Hinchcliffe to
Charlie Kirk and later lobbed a vulgar insult aimed at Kanye West, and
the moment instantly ricocheted through social feeds and conservative
outlets.
The actual quip about Charlie Kirk — comparing
Hinchcliffe to footage of Kirk and using tasteless language about his
death — landed like a gut punch because Kirk’s killing is not abstract
political theater; it was a real tragedy that left grieving family and
supporters. Davidson then pivoted to an old feud with Kanye, calling him
a “gay Nazi,” a gratuitous line that only amplified the sense that the
roast had morphed into a sloppy, mean-spirited hit job rather than sharp
comedy.
Conservatives and normal Americans who still believe in
basic decency pushed back immediately, and right-leaning outlets pointed
out the hypocrisy of Hollywood’s morality while the left pretends to be
shocked by consequences. Critics who warned that making light of a
murdered conservative would provoke a backlash were proven right in
hours as clips spread and outrage grew across platforms.
It’s
worth reminding readers why this bite felt so raw: Charlie Kirk was
assassinated in September 2025 while speaking on a college campus, a
moment that stunned the nation and heightened tensions about rhetoric
and safety for public figures. Jokes referencing his death don’t land in
a vacuum; they sit atop a national wound that conservatives still feel
keenly.
Hollywood insists roasts are sacred free-speech zones, yet
we’ve watched the same industry purge and cancel anyone who strays from
the approved partisan script when it suits them. That double standard
is impossible to ignore when the roast audience cheered lines that would
get a conservative fired in a heartbeat, and when Netflix continues to
bankroll events that normalize cruelty under the guise of comedy.
Patriots
who care about decency and the safety of public discourse should call
this for what it is: a calculated bit of performative cruelty dressed up
as humor. We can defend free speech and still demand that our cultural
elites show the common decency to refrain from deriding the dead,
especially when those deaths have become rallying points for a movement
that fights for American values.
Democrats have gone into what party insiders
openly describe as panic mode as Republicans suddenly see a clearer path
to holding the House in 2026.
A series of court rulings on redistricting and voting rights has
given the GOP a clear path to pick up at least 10 House seats, political
experts say.
What only weeks ago appeared to be a growing Democrat advantage in
the national redistricting battle has now dramatically reversed.
A major ruling this past week by the Virginia Supreme Court
invalidating the state's newly drawn congressional map, combined with a
recent U.S. Supreme Court decision limiting key provisions of the Voting
Rights Act, could ultimately hand Republicans control of the House in
the next Congress.
The developments have rattled Democrats nationwide and energized
Republicans who now believe the political map has shifted decisively in
their favor.
"F*****ck!!" one House Democrat texted Axios reporter Andrew Solender
after Virginia's high court struck down the Democrat-backed map that
would have targeted four Republican-held seats.
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries vowed Democrats would pursue
"all options to overturn this shocking decision," while
Democrat strategists privately acknowledged the setback could
fundamentally alter the battle for control of Congress.
"I think we still take back the House, but it's a major setback,"
Democrat strategist Adrienne Elrod told reporters. "We have to just win
at the ballot box. And we can do it."
Republican optimism comes after a dramatic turnaround in a redistricting war Democrats themselves escalated beginning in 2023.
That year, Republicans shocked Democrats by flipping 11 House seats
nationally, including major gains in New York. Democrats responded
aggressively.
In Albany, Democrat lawmakers moved to redraw New York's
congressional map, effectively eliminating six Republican districts and
reigniting mid-decade redistricting efforts across the country.
The strategy unleashed an all-out national battle over congressional
lines, with both parties searching for ways to gain an advantage before
the next census.
Until recently, Democrats appeared to have momentum.
Virginia Democrats had approved new congressional maps projected to create four additional Democratic-leaning seats.
But the Virginia Supreme Court's ruling Friday erased those gains and restored a friendlier political landscape for Republicans.
At nearly the same time, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis
unveiled new
congressional maps that could create four more Republican-leaning
districts in his state's already GOP-dominated delegation.
Then came perhaps the most consequential blow of all: the U.S.
Supreme Court ruled that a key provision of the Voting Rights Act could
not be used to create a racial majority district.
The ruling opens the door for Republican-controlled Southern states
such as Louisiana, Alabama, and Georgia to redraw numerous
majority-minority districts that had long been protected under federal
law.
Political analysts believe the decision could reshape congressional maps across the South for years to come.
Tennessee Republicans have already approved a new map targeting the
state's lone Democrat-held district, while other Southern legislatures
are reportedly moving quickly to redraw additional lines.
Democrat consultant Trevor Southerland bluntly summed up growing concerns inside the party: "Rigged maps can overcome a lot."
Republicans, meanwhile, are celebrating what they see as a political and legal breakthrough.
"I thank the Supreme Court for its courage in standing up for what is
right," said Rep. Jen Kiggans, R-Va., whose district would have become
heavily Democrat under Virginia's invalidated map.
Rep. Richard Hudson, chairman of the National Republican
Congressional Committee, declared: "This win is yet another sign
Republicans have the momentum heading into November. We're on offense,
and we're going to win."
The redistricting reversal is particularly striking because Democrats
had believed the 2026 political environment favored them strongly.
President Donald Trump's approval ratings have struggled amid
concerns about inflation, energy prices, and tensions surrounding the
war with Iran.
Historically, the party controlling the White House often loses House seats during midterm elections.
Democrats still believe public dissatisfaction with economic conditions could carry them to victory.
But party officials now fear redistricting may blunt those advantages.
One Democrat strategist admitted the party may now have to divert
huge sums of money simply to remain competitive in House races.
"Dems are going to have to double down on winning the House — even if
that means being unable to expand the map in the Senate," the
strategist said.
The financial cost is already enormous. Democrats reportedly spent
more than $65 million on the Virginia redistricting effort that was
ultimately struck down by the courts.
Republicans credit much of the strategy to Trump political advisers who pushed for aggressive mid-decade redraws nationwide.
James Blair, a Trump ally who advocated the plan, reacted to the court victories by posting on X: "Lord grant me humility."
Trump campaign manager Chris LaCivita praised Blair's strategy,
writing: "Always initiate contact — never wait for it to come to you."
Some Democrats now fear the conflict could escalate even further by
2028, with both parties embracing increasingly aggressive gerrymandering
tactics.
Rep. Terri Sewell, D-Ala.,
warned that Democrats may retaliate in blue states.
"I take 52 seats from California and 17 seats from Illinois," Sewell
said. "We're going to play their game, and we're going to beat them at
it."
For now, however, Republicans appear to hold the upper hand in a
redistricting battle that could determine control of Congress not just
this year — but for the rest of the decade.
