google-site-verification: google6508e39c6ec03602.html The news

google-site-verification: google6508e39c6ec03602.html

Friday 13 October 2023

U.S. Supreme Court puts temporary stay on Florida sports betting case


TALLAHASSEE, Fla. — The U.S. Supreme Court has temporarily put on hold a lower court ruling that gave a green light to a $2.5 billion gambling deal between the state and the Seminole Tribe of Florida.

Chief Justice John Roberts, who oversees emergency requests from the federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., on Thursday issued an administrative stay in the case while the full court considers a request for a long-term stay that was made last week by lawyers representing Florida casino operators.

The decision doesn’t indicate which way the Supreme Court may ultimately rule, but it likely means that the Tribe will not resume sports betting anytime soon in the nation’s third-most populous state.

Roberts in his order gave lawyers for the Department of Interior until Oct. 18 to respond to the request for the longer stay. The lawyers representing the owners of the Magic City Casino in Miami and the Bonita Springs Poker Room want the temporary pause while it asks the Supreme Court to consider the legal dispute.

A federal appeals court in June concluded a lower court judge had wrongly blocked the deal and said that any dispute over the compact between Florida and the Tribe should be fought in state court. The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in September turned down a request for a rehearing.

Florida’s gambling deal with the Tribe was approved by the GOP-led Legislature in May 2021 and later signed into law by Gov. Ron DeSantis. The compact not only authorized sports betting, but it authorized the Tribe to add craps and roulette to its current casinos and build additional casinos on the Tribe’s Hollywood reservation that is already home to Hard Rock Hotel & Casino. Shortly after the deal was approved, the Seminoles began offering sports betting through a mobile app.

But in late 2021, U.S. District Judge Dabney Friedrich with the District of Columbia concluded the deal was illegal because it allowed people to place sports bets anywhere in the state in violation of federal laws governing gambling on Native Americans’ lands. The lawsuit was filed against U.S. Secretary of the Interior Deb Haaland because her agency did not block the compact.

Friedrich also ruled that the only sports betting allowed outside of tribal lands in Florida is through a citizen initiative. Voters in 2018 approved an amendment — backed by the Seminole Tribe and Disney — that said voters must approve any future expansions of casino gambling.

The Seminoles halted use of the mobile betting app shortly after the ruling was issued, but has not taken any steps to revive it even after the appeals court rejected Friedrich’s reasoning. That has meant sports betting has been sidelined in Florida during the 2023 NFL and college football season which is usually a time of heavy betting.



from Politics, Policy, Political News Top Stories https://ift.tt/wVkyUdX
via IFTTT

U.S. Pentagon chief to travel to Israel


Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin will travel to Israel on Friday, a senior Defense Department official announced.

What's happening: Austin will travel to Israel from Brussels, where he met with his international counterparts and discussed aid for Ukraine, said the official, who was granted anonymity to discuss sensitive plans. He will meet with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Defense Minister Yoav Gallant and other Israeli officials.

Context: Austin's visit comes after Secretary of State Antony Blinken traveled to Israel on Thursday. He also met with Netanyahu and Israeli officials.

Plenty to talk about: Austin has directed significant military moves to support Israel in recent days, deploying an aircraft carrier strike group to the Eastern Mediterranean and additional fighter aircraft to the Middle East. DOD is also sending munitions and Iron Dome air defense interceptors to Tel Aviv.

In addition, DOD officials are working on Israeli requests to also transfer precision-guided small diameter bombs, and Joint Direct Attack Munition kits that convert unguided bombs into precision-guided munitions, the senior DOD official said.



from Politics, Policy, Political News Top Stories https://ift.tt/n7tIcwu
via IFTTT

NYC vowed to close one of the nation’s worst jails. It isn’t going very well.


NEW YORK — Four years ago, New York City Democrats hailed the end of mass incarceration and the horrors that come along with it. They were going to close Rikers Island, one of the nation’s most violent jails.

Instead, the population of detainees has grown after reaching a historic low during the pandemic. There are more deaths in custody. And the plan to shutter the penal complex is faltering with no clear fix in sight.

For New York City Mayor Eric Adams, who has held his public safety prowess up as a model for national Democrats, Rikers could become a serious stain on his legacy.

There have been nine detainee deaths just this year, and the complex is under threat of federal receivership.

Failing to fully close what has become a modern-day Alcatraz would not only threaten years of criminal justice work and sap the city’s reputation as a locus of liberal policymaking. It would also explode costs and call into question local government’s ability to pull off major infrastructure projects.

“Nobody on Rikers has been sentenced to death, but that’s actually happening,” said Jumaane Williams, the city’s Democratic public advocate and a proponent of shuttering the facility, in a recent interview. “You have correction officers being hurt. That is actually happening. The culture there is simply dangerous and everybody knows it.”

Officials are exploring a few possible course corrections: The administration has a working group that is exploring new ways to expand jail capacity, even if it means keeping some space on the island. And the City Council is weighing whether to revamp an influential commission that generated the original closure plan.

But time is running out.

By law, Rikers must close by August 2027 — the same year that four smaller replacement jails around the city are supposed to open. That means the city has reached the halfway point between when the closure plan was passed and when it must take effect.

Yet construction on the new facilities is already years behind schedule. And the finished products won’t be large enough to house the current detainee population: The planned facilities were designed to have space for 3,300 people. The population on Rikers was 6,138 as of Sept. 1.

With such an immense and impending problem looming above City Hall, the reaction of government officials has mostly been finger-pointing.

A government divided



On Oct. 17, 2019, an air of triumph permeated the chambers of the City Council as lawmakers voted to shut down Rikers and mandate the construction of four jails in the Bronx, Brooklyn, Manhattan and Queens.

The idea was to create modern facilities whose very layout would reduce violence and ease oversight. The location of the buildings was also key: By siting them near courthouses, as opposed to a far-flung island, family members could visit more easily — and the city’s Department of Correction could get more detainees to trial on time.

That, in turn, was supposed to help shorten pretrial detentions that upend life for the accused. In one infamous case, Kalief Browder killed himself at home after being held for three years on the island, much of it in solitary confinement, without ever facing a trial. His name became a rallying cry.

The plan also relied on shrinking the jail population to historic lows through state bail reform and city diversion programs.

“Today we made history,” former Mayor Bill de Blasio said after the 2019 Council vote. “The era of mass incarceration is over.”

Four years later, that spirit of cooperation is gone.

Adams — whose administration bears legal responsibility for closing Rikers and has the most granular knowledge about what is going wrong — has been looking to foist some responsibility for what comes next onto his partners in government.

“The City Council must look at this,” he said during an August interview at New York Law School. “How do we come up with a plan that gets the reform we're looking for and the safety that we're looking for?”

He argued that his administration inherited an unworkable blueprint from the legislative body that is increasing in cost, and that lawmakers should reexamine.

The Council disagrees.

During an interview with CBS in August, Council Speaker Adrienne Adams suggested the city could comply with the law by reducing the number of detainees through a combination of diversion, mental health and supervised release programs, some of which were included in a 2021 study. That smaller population could then fit into the planned jails.

“And my hope is that we work together to get to that,” she said.



Yet the notion Council members will avoid cracking open the 2019 law is up against some major obstacles.

To start with, the new jail system is behind schedule.

A construction contract for the Brooklyn facility runs through 2029. That is two years beyond the mandated closure date for Rikers. The three other facilities do not have building contracts at all. And once they are inked, which officials expect soon, they are likely to run beyond the 2027 deadline as well.

In addition, reducing the number of detainees is far from a straightforward task, as the low-hanging fruit has largely been plucked.

Since 2016, the jail population has fallen by roughly 40 percent, mostly a result of changes to state law — which ended cash bail for most misdemeanors and nonviolent crimes — and the elimination of jail time for most parolees.

Now, trial delays in state court present the biggest obstacle to reducing headcount. This year, for example, the average length of stay has been 115 days. That is four times the national average.

Removing the bottleneck requires reforms to the sclerotic court system and the operations of district attorneys — actions that Adams can advocate for but not unilaterally take.

To top it off, overall crime rates are higher compared to when the closure plan was passed. And arrests for more serious infractions are at the highest level since Rudy Giuliani was mayor in the 1990s.

A path forward



While Adams has maintained support for the plan writ large, he has nevertheless taken some contradictory stances over the years.

As Brooklyn borough president, he advocated for shrinking the size of the new jail system he now decries as too small. As a candidate, he expressed opposition to the Manhattan site in Chinatown which opponents have characterized as too tall.

Yet even as he casts blame on city lawmakers, behind the scenes a working group within the administration has been gaming out different scenarios and backup plans that could be brought to lawmakers, the mayor said in an interview with CBS 2 earlier this year.

According to two people with knowledge of the process, the group is now led by the mayor’s chief counsel, Lisa Zornberg, and has been mulling over questions such as whether to keep some jail space on Rikers, rezone the proposed facilities a second time or potentially find additional properties elsewhere.

The Council is gearing up to propose some solutions of its own, but they’re likely not what the mayor has in mind.

The speaker’s office told POLITICO the administration has yet to make good on several promises memorialized in the original 2019 agreement. That includes building hundreds of hospital beds for detainees suffering from mental illness, who make up around half the Rikers population, and starting new supportive housing units for New Yorkers who frequently find themselves homeless or ensnared in the criminal justice system.

“This failure must be corrected before any claim of what does or doesn’t work,” spokesperson Mandela Jones said in a statement, adding that, "the Council is ready to be a constructive partner in getting the city back on track.”

The body is also considering bringing in criminal justice experts from around the country or formally revamping its partnership with the Independent Commission on New York City Criminal Justice and Incarceration Reform with the aim of coming up with new approaches to population reduction.

The commission came up with the initial plan to close Rikers and is now pushing for the city to provide additional hospital beds for detainees suffering from mental illness beyond what was in the 2019 accord.

“You’ve got people coming in the front door with serious addiction issues to drugs and alcohol,” said Zachary Katznelson, executive director of the commission, in an interview. “These are people who should not be in the jails. They should be in treatment.”

City Hall conceded that the promised supportive housing and hospital projects have faced delays, but said the administration is still making progress.

“Despite the challenges of the pandemic and inflation, the Adams administration is continuing to move forward with the borough-based jail projects — accelerating the timeline, managing costs, and adding capacity to protect public safety,” mayoral spokesperson Charles Lutvak said in a statement, later adding that city officials “look forward to partnering with our partners in the City Council to keep New Yorkers safe and spend taxpayer dollars wisely.”

Yet if the city is going to take action, it needs to be soon. In terms of major infrastructure projects, 2027 might as well be right around the corner.

And without any meaningful changes in trajectory, the administration seems bound for the worst of both worlds: spending billions on new jails while keeping the old one open.

Housing detainees on Rikers past the closure date would be illegal. It would also cost a fortune. The decrepit complex, built in 1932, is nearing the end of a long arc of decay.

“That’s what governing by drift does,” said Elizabeth Glazer, the former executive director of the Mayor’s Office of Criminal Justice under de Blasio. “It’s expensive and not effective.”

Jeff Coltin contributed to this report.



from Politics, Policy, Political News Top Stories https://ift.tt/zcriyhp
via IFTTT

Thursday 12 October 2023

New York's freshman GOP House members seek to expel Santos ahead of 2024 battles


NEW YORK — If he won’t quit, they’ll try to expel him. And aim to help themselves in the process.

Five of New York’s vulnerable first-year House Republicans sponsored a resolution Wednesday to expel colleague Rep. George Santos — five months after joining their conference in effectively voting down a measure to do so in May.

Now they say the circumstances have changed after Santos was hit with new fraud charges on Tuesday, even if the likely outcome remains the same: The resolution won’t pass the full House.

The move aims to head off expected Democratic attacks next year that will try to use Santos’ troubles as an albatross in critical House seats in the state.

“Today, I’ll be introducing an expulsion resolution to rid the People’s House of fraudster, George Santos,” Rep. Anthony D’Esposito (R-N.Y.) posted on X, the platform formerly known as Twitter. D’Esposito, who represents a Long Island district neighboring Santos, said Reps. Nick LaLota, Mike Lawler, Marc Molinaro, Brandon Williams and Nick Langworthy, would be co-sponsoring.

With the exception of Langworthy, who represents a deep red district in western New York, they’re all facing difficult reelection battles in 2024.

The effort is a way to defend against criticism that they’re protecting Santos, who represents Long island and a part of Queens and was hit with 10 more federal charges, including conspiracy, in a superseding indictment. His campaign treasurer also pleaded guilty last week to filing false campaign finance reports for Santos. Santos pleaded not guilty in May to charges including wire fraud, money laundering and theft of public funds.

Santos suggested he would plead not guilty to the new charges too, telling reporters Wednesday, “I can prove my innocence.”

And he dismissed attempts to oust him from Congress, which would further shrink the GOP's four-seat majority.

“They can try to expel me, but I pity the fools that go ahead and do that and think that that's the smartest idea,” Santos said. “They're in tough elections next year, but they're setting precedent for the future.”




The resolution to expel wouldn’t be able to be taken up quickly. Legislation can’t move, currently, since there’s no speaker of the House, after the House passed a motion to remove Rep. Kevin McCarthy from the role.

And if it were to come to a vote, the resolution would need a two-thirds majority to pass.

When Democrats pushed a similar measure in May, after the initial charges were filed against Santos, the Republican majority instead moved to refer the matter to the House Ethics Committee, which hasn’t publicly taken any further action.

McCarthy, at the time, told New York Republicans he was worried about setting the precedent of expelling members before an ethics report was completed, or a conviction reached in court. In a closely divided House, it also helped to have Santos’ reliably Republican vote.

Beyond the legal charges, the Santos saga of lies has become a spectacle, and political opponents have been eager to project his unpopularity onto fellow Republicans.

Democratic activists rallied outside of Molinaro’s office in Binghamton in August, urging him to expel Santos. Molinaro, and other members of New York’s Republican delegation, have publicly criticized Santos and called on him to resign. But McCarthy and other Republican leaders, like Rep. Elise Stefanik, have not, instead saying they prefer to let the process play out.

D’Esposito’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment. But Lawler said on CNN that the new charges were the final straw.

“Myself and my New York colleagues wanted to allow the time for the investigation to be handled. But with the guilty plea of his treasurer admitting to the very scheme that he has been now twice indicted on with 23 felony counts, he cannot serve,” he said Wednesday.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, which is flooding resources into New York swing seats, said that's too little, too late.

“Is your increasing vulnerability the reason that you’ve changed your tune since first having the opportunity to expel criminally-indicted George Santos back in May?” DCCC spokesperson Ellie Dougherty said in a statement.

Santos himself may no longer have an ally leading the House, either. While House Republicans announced that Rep. Steve Scalise won a secret ballot Wednesday to be their next choice for speaker, Santos had publicly thrown his support behind Rep. Jim Jordan instead.

Democrats are already making moves, in anticipation of a potential special election if Santos were to resign, or be forced out of office. Former Rep. Tom Suozzi filed Tuesday to run for his old 3rd Congressional District seat, now held by Santos.



from Politics, Policy, Political News Top Stories https://ift.tt/iMxgy5t
via IFTTT

Oklahoma judge may be removed for texting during a murder trial


OKLAHOMA CITY — The chief justice of the Oklahoma Supreme Court is recommending the removal of a lower court judge who was caught on camera scrolling through social media and texting during a murder trial.

An investigation by the Oklahoma Supreme Court Council on Judicial Complaints found District Judge Traci Soderstrom exchanged more than 500 texts with her courtroom bailiff during the trial.

Texts included in a court filing showed the judge mocked prosecutors, laughed at the bailiff’s comment about a prosecutor’s genitals, praised the defense attorney and called the key prosecution witness a liar, according to the petition filed Tuesday by Chief Justice John Kane IV.

Soderstrom, who was sworn in on Jan. 9 after being elected in November, was suspended with pay pending the outcome of a hearing by the Court on the Judiciary, which will determine whether to remove her from the bench.

“The pattern of conduct demonstrates Respondent’s (Soderstrom’s) gross neglect of duty, gross partiality and oppression,” Kane wrote. “The conduct further demonstrates Respondent’s (Soderstrom’s) lack of temperament to serve as a judge.”

Khristian Tyler Martzall was eventually convicted of second-degree manslaughter in the 2018 death of Braxton Danker, the son of Martzall’s girlfriend, and sentenced to time served.

Martzall’s girlfriend and mother of the child, Judith Danker, pleaded guilty to enabling child abuse, was sentenced to 25 years and was a key prosecution witness who was called a liar by Soderstrom during testimony.

“State just couldn’t accept that a mom could kill their kid so they went after the next person available,” Soderstrom texted, according to the filing from Kane.

Soderstrom’s texts also included comments questioning whether a juror was wearing a wig and if a witness has teeth and calling a police officer who testified, “pretty. I could look at him all day.”

When questioned by the Council on Judicial Complaints, Soderstrom said her texting “probably could have waited” rather than realizing the comments should never have been made. She said she thought, “oh, that’s funny. Move on.”

Security video published by The Oklahoman newspaper showed Soderstrom texting or messaging for minutes at a time during jury selection, opening statements and testimony in the trial.

Kane’s petition also said Soderstrom had previously criticized other attorneys and prosecutors, and berated a member of the courthouse staff.

Kane wrote that Soderstrom should be removed for reasons that include gross neglect of duty, gross partiality in office and oppression in office.

A phone call to a number listed for Soderstrom rang unanswered before disconnecting Wednesday.

Soderstrom’s texts included saying the prosecutor was “sweating through his coat” during questioning of potential jurors and asking “why does he have baby hands?” according to Kane’s petition. The texts described the defense attorney as “awesome” and asked “can I clap for her?” during the defense attorney’s opening arguments.

Soderstrom also texted a laughing emoji icon to the bailiff, who had “made a crass and demeaning reference to the prosecuting attorneys’ genitals,” Kane wrote.



from Politics, Policy, Political News Top Stories https://ift.tt/2t3zQEg
via IFTTT

Ukraine tells NATO: Forget me not

The alliance insists it can handle crises in Ukraine and Israel at the same time.

from Politics, Policy, Political News Top Stories https://ift.tt/3Y5OANl
via IFTTT

Supreme Court likely to side with South Carolina GOP in racial gerrymandering case


The Supreme Court’s conservative majority on Wednesday appeared likely to uphold a Republican-drawn congressional district in South Carolina that a lower court found was racially gerrymandered.

The case — Alexander v. South Carolina Conference of the NAACP — tests the legal limits of partisan gerrymandering when it intersects with race. The NAACP is accusing Republican lawmakers of drawing the state’s 1st District, represented by GOP Rep. Nancy Mace, by shuffling Black voters in and out of the district to make it reliably Republican.

But the GOP insists it ignored race and only considered partisanship when it drew a district that was more favorable to Republican candidates.

The court’s conservative majority seemed likely to side with the South Carolina GOP lawmakers. During an oral argument that stretched for more than two hours, several conservative justices voiced doubts that the evidence presented at the lower court proved that race was a predominant factor when mapmakers drew the lines.

“We’ve never had a case where there has been no direct evidence, no map, no strangely configured districts,” said Chief Justice John Roberts. “Instead, it [is] all resting on circumstantial evidence.” Roberts said that it wasn’t impossible to bring a racial gerrymander claim on circumstantial evidence, but “this would be breaking new ground in our voting rights jurisprudence.”

The case is the third time in two years that the nation’s top court has heard arguments about states’ congressional lines, once again putting the justices in the position of deciding political boundaries ahead of a big election. The country has a long history of racial gerrymandering, which federal courts still police. But the court has ruled that the federal judiciary has no role in adjudicating partisan gerrymandering, leaving Wednesday’s case as the latest test of how the courts will handle it when the two collide.

The NAACP and other challengers argued that Mace’s district was drawn by intentionally sorting out Black voters from the district and moving them into the state’s 6th District, which is represented by longtime Democratic Rep. Jim Clyburn. They argued that race was the primary factor in drawing the lines after the 2020 census, in violation of the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause and the 15th Amendment’s guarantee that Americans’ right to vote won’t be “denied or abridged” on account of race.

Republicans said they didn’t look at race while drawing the lines, instead relying solely on partisan data — and that they were clear in their goals to make the district more Republican.

A panel of three federal judges — two appointees of former President Barack Obama and one of President Joe Biden — agreed with the challengers earlier this year, writing that “race was the predominant factor motivating” the new 1st District and that there was an “effective bleaching of African American voters out of the Charleston County portion” of the district.

Mapmakers “may not use partisanship as a proxy for race,” that court ruled.

Republicans appealed to the Supreme Court, conceding that the district was gerrymandered — but for partisan, not racial, reasons. The lower court “failed to disentangle race from politics” when tossing out the district, South Carolina Republicans argued: They had drawn the voters out of the district because they were Democrats, not because they were Black.

“The Plan treated all Democratic voters the same and all Republican voters the same — regardless of race,” attorneys for the state’s GOP officials wrote in a brief filed with the high court. “It is undisputed that the Plan likely disadvantages just as many or more white Democrats as African-American Democrats in District 1.”

Justice Samuel Alito was the most aggressive questioner of the lower court’s decision, arguing the justices need not “rubber stamp” findings by the lower court, “particularly in a case in which the basis for a judgment in favor [of the NAACP] relies very heavily, if not entirely, on expert reports.”

The case in the lower court presented no explicit evidence that mapmakers used racial data to draw the lines — like, for example, a text message or speech from a lawmaker stating as much. Instead, it largely relied on expert analysis that argued there was no way to draw the district without using racial demographics.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor and the court’s other liberals argued that the circumstantial evidence the lower court relied in its ruling was enough, citing past court precedent: The court was “clear that you don't need a smoking gun” in a 2017 case that found North Carolina’s lines to be unconstitutional. “And if you don't need a smoking gun, you don't need direct evidence.”

Many of the conservative justices also focused on perceived flaws in the NAACP experts’ analysis.

The arguments on Wednesday were remarkable in the fact that nobody — not the attorneys for the state of South Carolina, the NAACP or the Justice Department, nor the justices themselves — questioned what the goal of the South Carolina congressional map was: to give Republicans an advantage in the 1st District. The Supreme Court ruled in 2019 that partisan gerrymandering was not something federal courts could police. Roberts wrote at the time that efforts to get federal judges involved in such fights lacked “standards that are clear, manageable, and politically neutral.”

“Everybody seems to take as given that the legislature here did seek to pursue a partisan gerrymander, if you will — or partisan tilt, I think, is their preferred term — and that’s permissible under this court’s precedents,” Justice Neil Gorsuch said.

However, given racially polarized voting patterns in many parts of the country, maps that limit the power of Democrats often limit the power of Black voters and other voters of color. So the ruling four years ago left the door open to disputes like the one heard by the justices on Wednesday.

Justice Elena Kagan, who was perhaps the most forceful member of the liberal minority in trying to defend the lower court’s decision, acknowledged at one point that this was the first case of its kind since that decision. But she argued that mapmakers would not have relied just on 2020 election results, as they claimed, in drawing their GOP-leaning map.

“Everybody can tell you that if you really want to draw a stable partisan gerrymander, you do not rely on a single presidential year election data,” she said. “They had not only the opportunity — it was sitting there on their computers — but the clear incentive to be looking at this race data, which is certainly more predictive of future voting behavior than a single presidential year election, in which President Trump was the candidate, which further distorts voting behavior.”

South Carolina’s 1st District was one of Democrats’ biggest upsets in 2018, when Joe Cunningham won an open-seat race.

Mace then narrowly flipped the district back to the GOP in 2020, beating Cunningham by just over 1 percentage point. Republicans shored up the district and made it more reliably red during the decennial redistricting process, and Mace won a blowout last year, defeating an underfunded Democrat with a nearly 14-point win.

The court’s two most recent redistricting rulings may provide fairly little guidance for how justices will side in this case.

The Supreme Court upheld an order throwing out Alabama’s congressional lines for racial gerrymandering over the summer — but that case was argued under the Voting Rights Act using a distinct legal theory from the 14th Amendment claim.

While Roberts has traditionally been skeptical and even hostile to voting-rights cases, the chief justice surprised many civil rights advocates in June by siding with voting-rights groups and Democrats in a racial gerrymandering lawsuit from Alabama. The court’s liberal justices also joined Roberts in the decision and Justice Brett Kavanaugh backed the bulk of it.

And at some points during Wednesday’s hearing, Roberts left wiggle room, appearing to leave open the possibility of not overturning the lower court’s findings because of the high court’s practice of deferring to the factual findings of lower judges unless they are clearly in error.

The court’s other recent redistricting case focused on North Carolina but was really a vehicle to advance a controversial legal theory that state legislatures have near unbounded authority to set election laws — an argument the Supreme Court largely rejected. That case has little similarity with the South Carolina case heard on Wednesday.

The battle for control of the House in 2024 could come down to how courts rule on a series of challenges to state-drawn maps. Republicans have a razor-thin House majority already. And it will likely get smaller with an all-but-guaranteed Democratic pickup in Alabama, where a federal court last week picked a map that will almost certainly add a Black member to the delegation.

Two other cases are advancing in lower courts in Georgia and Louisiana that challenge maps under the Voting Rights Act, which could together result in a pair of additional Democratic-leaning seats.

And two big states could have significant redraws by the end of the year. North Carolina Republicans are set to introduce a map later this month that will break up the state’s evenly split 14-seat delegation to one where the GOP could have as many as 11 seats. And Democrats in New York are trying to erase a court-drawn competitive map and pick up an additional handful of seats.



from Politics, Policy, Political News Top Stories https://ift.tt/WkhEnMC
via IFTTT