Tag: Legistlation

Options After Callais

Posted on by Stand Up for Workers Action

What are the options for dealing with Callais’ decimation of Sec. 2 of the Voting Rights Act and Rucho’s determination that partisan redistricting claims are not justiciable in the federal courts?

Callais is already leading to the destruction of Black-majority congressional districts and to the destruction of any hope for a multi-racial democracy, especially in the South. Rucho has led to a battle to the bottom, in which state legislatures have begun redistricting congressional districts to the benefit of the majority party in those states’ legislatures.

There are three principal responses: federal anti-gerrymandering legislation, state anti-legislation, and proportional representation.

Federal Anti-Gerrymandering Legislation

Congress has the power, pursuant to Article 1, Section 4 of the Constitution, to enact laws governing the time, place, and manner of elections for Members of the House of Representatives. Democrats have repeatedly introduced bills in Congress that would prohibit states from engaging in partisan gerrymandering or redistricting and from redistricting congressional districts in mid-decade. The current bills are S. 2885 and H.R. 5449.

Those bills would prohibit any state from using “a redistricting plan to conduct an election that, when considered on a statewide basis, has been drawn with the intent or has the effect of materially favoring or disfavoring any political party.” They would establish criteria for deciding whether a districting plan was adopted for partisan reasons, would establish a private right of action with three-judge panels and a right to appeal to the D.C. Circuit, and would require each state to establish independent, non- partisan redistricting commissions.

The House passed, in 2022, the Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act, which contained prohibitions against partisan congressional redistricting. But the bill died in the Senate because of a Republican filibuster.

Right now, the bills prohibiting partisan redistricting would meet a similar fate, and would be vetoed by Pres. Trump if the Senate amended the filibuster rules to let them pass. Republicans now believe that partisan redistricting is in their partisan best interests.

It is possible that Democrats in states with legislatures controlled by their party will be able to create enough new Democratic congressional seats to cancel out the new Republican congressional seats created by Republican state legislators. Only if the two parties realize that they are evenly disadvantaged by partisan redistricting will congressional Republicans probably agree to sponsor these bills.

State Anti-Gerrymandering Legislation

A number of states require redistricting to be done by independent commissions, provided that partisan redistricting claims are justiciable in those states’ courts, or otherwise prohibit or limit partisan redistricting. Florida, for example, has state constitutional provisions prohibiting maps “drawn with the intent to favor or disfavor a political party or an incumbent.”

Those provisions did not stop Florida Gov. DeSantis and the Republican- controlled state legislature from adopting new maps that, if adopted, would net 4 new seats for Republicans. A circuit court judge, on May 26, 2026, refused to issue a preliminary injunction because he concluded there was “insufficient evidence of impermissible intent.” That judge would have accepted the legislature’s denial that Donald Duck is a duck.

Proportional Representation

Another approach would be to abandon gerrymandering altogether, by providing for proportional representation on a state-wide basis. For example, assume that a state has 10 congressional districts and that Party A won 60% of the congressional vote state-wide, while Party B won 40% of the vote. In a proportional system, six of the state’s districts would be represented by politicians affiliated with Party A, and 40% by representatives from Party B.

In that system, the districts with the highest votes for Party A would have representatives from that party. That would eliminate the worst inequities of partisan gerrymandering. People would no longer see their votes wasted because of the drawing of district boundaries. That would incentivize each political party and each party’s voters to vote, regardless of the way the boundaries are drawn.

However, there is a real possibility that a proportional-representation scheme in a state with a large number of congressional districts, such as California or Texas, could be won by minor parties, which could further fracture the political system. Overall, however, this kind of scheme would reduce extreme partisanship and eliminate the current race to the bottom of racial gerrymandering.

Written By Barry Roseman, SU4W Board Member

The Fifteenth Amendment and Callais

Posted on by Stand Up for Workers Action

I wrote an article in the May issue of the Stand Up For Workers newsletter about the Supreme Court’s decision in Louisiana v. Callais. I only briefly mentioned the Fifteenth Amendment to the U.S Constitution in that piece.

The Callais majority decision effectively determined that Sec. 2 of the Voting Rights Act was unconstitutional, while claiming that it was merely “updat[ing]” the framework for determining whether Sec. 2 has been violated. That was a cynical exercise of the conservative majority’s power. The majority opinion would have been more intellectually honest if it had said what it was doing. The claim that it was just updating the Sec. 2 framework fooled no one.

Sec. 2 was enacted pursuant to both the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments.

The Fifteenth Amendment prohibits the states from “deny[ing] or abridg[ing]” the “right of citizens of the United States to vote” because of their “race.” In fact, the Fifteenth Amendment is the only provision in the Constitution that expressly prohibits racial discrimination.

Southern states diluted Black citizens’ votes by gerrymandering congressional districts as early as the 1870s. The Supreme Court in 1980 rejected a claim of racial dilution pursuant to Sec. 2 because the plaintiffs had not proven that the dilution scheme was done for a racial reason. Congress rejected that interpretation of Sec. 2.

In its 1982 amendments to the VRA, it expressly supported racial-dilution claims and provided that it is not necessary to prove discriminatory intent to prevail on such claims. Congress had the power to adopt the amended Sec. 2 pursuant to the Fifteenth Amendment, which grants Congress the “power to enforce this [amendment] by appropriate legislation.” The Supreme Court, in 1966, decided that “Congress may use any rational means to effectuate the constitutional prohibition of racial discrimination in voting.” The Callais majority concluded that that Fifteenth Amendment power is limited to efforts to end intentional racial discrimination in voting. The majority reasoned that redistricting for partisan reasons does not violate Sec. 2. But voting by Black voters in the South is highly partisan now, as it was in the 1870s and 1880s. Partisan redistricting is racial redistricting, especially in the South, where almost all Black individuals and relatively few white people vote for Democrats. Congress amended Sec. 2 because Southern state legislatures solemnly stated that they had no racial animus is drawing district lines.

That is nonsense. Of course they did, since they knew the penalties of being honest about their intent.

State legislatures are populated and advised by lawyers. State legislators are acutely aware of the importance of legislative district boundaries. They know where the district boundaries are located and know that Black voters in the South overwhelmingly vote for Democrats.

The drawing of district boundaries is an intentional act. Sec. 2 was amended because evidence of racial results is evidence of racial intent. It is not necessary to find direct evidence of racial intent, since that intent is inferred from legislatures’ intentional decisions to create districts that result in racial discrimination.

Callais is written from the perspective of the white majority legal and political system in this country. Black citizens in the South – with the apparent exception of Justice Thomas – understand that racial discrimination is alive and well in their state legislatures. The Voting Rights Act was adopted to end that discrimination. As a result of Callais, that discrimination is alive and well.

It is ironic that as this country celebrates the 250th anniversary of the adoption of the Declaration of Independence, the aftermath of the peculiar institution of slavery continues to rear its ugly head in the heart of this democracy. The Callais decision will destroy Black representation in most of the South, until and unless it is overturned or until Congress abolishes partisan gerrymandering or requires proportional representation for congressional districts.

*******

On June 2, 2026, by a vote of 6-3, a majority of the Supreme Court granted a motion for stay in Allen v. Milligan, after a three-judge panel in the Southern District of Alabama concluded that the Alabama state legislature had intentionally discriminated on the basis of race in creating a legislative map that included only one Black-majority congressional district.

The Supreme Court decided in the same case in 2023 that Alabama’s congressional map unlawfully discriminated on the basis of race against Black residents of that state. The district court then held an 11-day trial in which 51 witnesses testified and almost 800 exhibits were exhibited into evidence. The district court concluded that the legislature acted with a discriminatory purpose and not for partisan reasons. The Supreme Court ignored that clear evidentiary record in allowing Alabama to hold an election with only one Black-majority district this year.

Written by Barry Roseman, SU4W Board Member

Opinion: We Need Guardrails

Posted on by Stand Up for Workers Action

As a long-time resident of Colorado, I appreciate guardrails.

Let me give you an example.

When I drive from Denver to Winter Park, Granby and Steamboat Springs, Colorado, I need to go over Berthoud Pass on U.S. 40. I rely on guardrails on the eastern approach to Berthoud to protect against situations like a flat tire, driving when exhausted, or even an avalanche — all of which could plunge me hundreds of feet to the valley floor without that barrier.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines “guardrail” as “a bar along the edge of something steep, such as stairs or a cliff, to prevent people from falling off.” But the term is also used metaphorically to refer to regulations or frameworks designed to ensure ethical conduct and prevent abuses of power.

Vice President Harris warned voters in 2024 that Donald Trump, if re-elected as president, would not have any effective guardrails. That prediction was accurate. In his first 16 months of this second term, Trump has operated without most of the institutional guardrails that have constrained his predecessors.

Trump populated his cabinet and his top-level advisors in his first term with those who had deep knowledge of the perils of acting thoughtlessly. This time, his primary criterion has been their loyalty to Trump. Cabinet meetings have become parodies, with person after person praising him, discussing the supposed wisdom of his decisions, competing with each other for his approval. The result, unsurprisingly, is that no one in the Executive Branch, with the exception of Fed. Chair Jerome Powell, is willing to second-guess his decisions.

The Congress has abdicated its institutional role as a co-equal branch of government. Senate and House Republicans have voted against five different War Powers resolutions against the increasingly unpopular war against Iran. Even Republicans who oppose endless wars have been quieted by the threat of primary election challenges.

Overall, the federal courts have been less deferential to Trump. The Supreme Court has used its shadow docket to grant Trump a series of stays in decisions concerning immigration and other matters.

But, Trump has had less success getting unfriendly countries to bend to his wishes. Iran, in particular, has fought Trump to a standstill in his war against that country, blocking the Strait of Hormuz until the U.S. lifts its blockade of Iranian ports. It has refused to meet with American envoys as long as the American blockade continues. “Since the Iranians are obviously negotiating very skillfully – or simply not negotiating,” German Chancellor Merz said, “a whole nation is being humiliated by the Iranian leadership.”

Trump has said that he doesn’t “need international law” and that his power is constrained by his “own morality.” That’s like relying on the sobriety of an alcoholic to keep that person from plunging hundreds of feet to his death from the Berthoud Pass road.

No president in American history, with the possible exception of Richard Nixon, has needed guardrails. Other presidents, even those who have made major changes to the federal government, have operated mostly within the law.

FDR, for example, got his programs adopted by Congress and appealed directly to the American people in support of his programs. When he made controversial proposals, such as to increase the number of Supreme Court justices after that court had ruled against New Deal programs, he tried to do that by legislation and retreated in the face of public opposition. Abraham Lincoln populated his cabinet with political rivals. Other presidents have filled their cabinets with powerful people with strong agendas, such as Alexander Hamilton, Frances Perkins and Henry Kissinger. No president other than Trump has needed or tolerated the level of pure sycophancy shown by Trump’s band of yes- people.

The ultimate guardrail, however, is the people.

People across the country have rebelled against ICE’s militarized, aggressive, and lawless war against immigrants. Millions have participated in No Kings rallies. Trump’s tariffs have delivered higher prices while manufacturing jobs continue to disappear. Public opinion polls show that voters have turned against Trump because of economic woes, increased inflation, and the war against Iran.

The ultimate check and balance in our constitutional order is the voter. If control of the House and/or the Senate passes the Democrats this November, the Congress will be able to perform its traditional role of guarding against autocratic power by the Executive Branch.

There are many ways in which a Democratic-controlled Congress can exercise that power. It almost certainly will launch investigations into the rampant corruption of the Trump administration and into the myriad and often illegal ways it has operated. It can use the power of the purse to reinstate agencies that have been abolished or gutted, such as U.S. AID and the Department of Education.

We need to do everything we can to get the people to restore the institutional guardrails that have been missed during the second Trump term. And, if a blue tsunami appears in six months, the Democrats will need to deliver.

It is not too much of an exaggeration to say that American democracy and the future of the world are on the line.

Written By Barry Roseman, SU4W Board Member

Response to Louisiana v. Callais Decision

Posted on by Stand Up for Workers Action

The conservative majority of the Supreme Court just completed a project by Chief Justice Roberts, waged for more than four decades, to eviscerate the Voting Rights Act, seriously harming representative democracy in this country.

First, a brief history lesson.

From 1619 to 1865, most African Americans in the U.S. were enslaved, with “no rights which the white man was bound to accept,” as stated in Dred Scott v. Sandford. After the end of the Civil War and the adoption of the 15th Amendment, Black individuals in the South were given and then deprived of voting rights. For nearly 90 years, African Americans were prevented from voting and subjected to Jim Crow laws in the former Confederate States. That ended, formally, in 1965, with the Voting Rights Act. But, John Roberts began working to eliminate the VRA’s protections as a young lawyer in 1982. He completed those efforts with his decision on April 29, 2026 in Louisiana v. Callais.

The VRA has two enforcement provisions in Sections 2 and 5. The pre-clearance language in Sec. 5 required legislatures in certain states, principally in the South, to clear any changes to voting procedures in advance with the U.S. Department of Justice. The Supreme Court decided in Shelby County v. Holder in 2013 that those pre-clearance provisions were no longer needed because “things had changed dramatically” since 1965 and “Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy that problem [racial discrimination in voting] speaks to current conditions.”

It is true that the former restrictions against Black voters, such as poll taxes, had disappeared in those years, but racial discrimination in voting persisted. Those states, predictably, immediately began enacting voting restrictions against African American voters. Section 2 still offered the possibility of attacking legislative redistricting that adversely affected Black voters. For decades, Southern legislators have “packed” Black citizens into a few districts and “cracked” other African American voters into white majority districts. Roberts hollowed out Section 2, which was used in those voting dilution cases, in Callais.

The heart of the majority opinion in that decision is a new requirement for challenges to a redistricting scheme. The plaintiffs now need to show the new district lines are not done for partisan purposes. Since the vast majority of Black voters in the South are Democrats, districting to support the Republican party is therefore also done for racial reasons. Partisan redistricting is racial districting in the South.

The Louisiana secretary of state declared an “emergency” after Callais was handed down. The clear purpose of that declaration, declared three days before primary voting in that state was scheduled to begin, is to redistrict either or both of the congressional districts now represented by Black individuals in Louisiana. Up to twelve Black- represented districts now are in peril of racial dilution. In 2019, the Supreme Court decided, in Rucho v. Common Cause, that claims of partisan gerrymandering cannot be brought in federal court despite the fact that partisan gerrymandering is a blatant violation of the First Amendment.

The First Amendment prohibits the government from taking an action based on the viewpoint of a speaker, especially when the speech is political and when the action harms the speaker. A person cannot be deprived of a business license because of that person’s speech, but that same person can be deprived of the right to have effective representation because of speech and association with others. The Supreme Court decided in Rucho not that such partisan gerrymandering was legal, but rather that it would not do anything about it. Callais will result in racial gerrymandering that will deprive Black voters in the South of representation by legislators who support their interests. Rucho deprives all voters of the right to be represented by people who support their interests.

The branch of the federal government that is not selected by the voters, populated by judges with life terms, has decided to destroy representative democracy in this country. It is thwarting the will of Congress. It is deciding these cases based on a fictional view of reality. It is exaggerating the partisan divide in the states by incentivizing Democratic legislators to redistrict to favor Democrats and Republican legislators to favor Republicans.

The conservative justices on the Supreme Court are now politicians in black robes. That could destroy the Court, or representative democracy, and maybe both. If the voters do not elect a Democratic majority in the House and the Senate in 2026, and if that majority does not effectively address this issue, Black legislators and representative democracy will be in mortal danger.

Help us move the needle forward in getting democracy back into Congress during the midterm elections with by making a donation of any amount to the Stand Up For Workers PAC.

Written By Barry Roseman, SU4W Board Member

Candidate Spotlight: Sherrod Brown

Posted on by Stand Up for Workers Action

Long before affordability powered Mikie Sherill, Abigail Spanberger and Zohran Momdani to election in November 2025, Sherrod Brown focused on working-class economic issues in the House and in the Senate.

He has been a strong supporter of organized labor, and Sherrod and his wife Connie proudly drive union-made Jeeps manufactured in Toledo, Ohio. After noting that his home zip code had the highest rate of housing foreclosures in the country, he said, “I want to devote the rest of my career to helping people have affordable, decent, clean, safe housing.”

Brown was elected to the U.S. House in 1992 in a district in northeast Ohio. He served in that seat until 2008, when he was first elected to the Senate. He was defeated in 2024, in a race in which crypto interests donated $40 million to his Republican challenger. Brown is again running for the Senate, in the seat vacated by Vice President Vance, a seat that has been filled by Sen. Jon Husted for the last year.

He voted for the Affordable Care Act in 2010, supported Medicare for All, sponsored legislation to make Medicare eligible to people at age 55, and was a leader in an effort to expand the child tax credit, an effort that temporarily cut the U.S. child poverty rate in half.

Brown supported the Employee Free Choice Act, which would have required certification of a labor union, without an election, if a majority of employees in the bargaining unit had signed authorization cards. He advocated for a higher minimum wage. In addition to this, he supported investing in infrastructure, supported small businesses and supported green energy initiatives.

When it comes to oppositions, he has opposed the outsourcing of American job by supporting tariffs and protectionist trade policies. He voted against ratification of the NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement, and successfully opposed ratification of the Central American Free Trade Agreement. During Trump’s first term, he supported renegotiation of NAFTA. However, Brown voted against ratification of its replacement because he felt that its worker protection provisions were insufficient.

He led an effort in 2008 to preempt future bank bailouts by breaking up “too-big- to-fail” banks by limiting the size of banks eligible for federal financial assistance. Brown fought against legislation that reduced the regulations on banks with more than $50 billion but less than $250 billion in assets, pointing out the Senate was engaged in “collective amnesia” by repealing rules designed to avoid future bank bailouts.

Brown supported legislation to more tightly regulate crypto, due to the lack of adequate consumer protections and the use of crypto by terrorist groups and international criminal interests. Fairshake, a pro-crypto industry PAC, spent more than $40 million in advertisements (which didn’t mention crypto) to defeat Brown in 2024.

Those same interests will probably spend similar amounts of money to elect Husted and to defeat Brown in 2026. Right now, Brown is ahead of Husted by 1% and is trailing Husted by 3% in two recent polls. Brown’s election chances will depend on whether Ohio voters’ opposition to Trump and their concerns about affordability are outweighed by out-of state interests’ spending to support Husted. In other words, Brown’s chances will be based on whether crypto spending – which has nothing to do with the issues that concern Ohioans – will control the election results.

Written By Barry Roseman, SU4W Board Member & Treasurer