HONOLULU (AP) — Two states could try a new way to reduce the influence of corporations and hard-to-track “dark money” groups that have been able to spend unlimited amounts on politics since the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling.

Hawaii lawmakers on Friday sent a bill to the governor that would redefine corporations in a way that precludes spending on elections. A volunteer group in Montana is gathering signatures in hopes of putting a similar issue to voters in November.

Supporters say voters dislike corporate and dark money in elections and this effort meets a need. Detractors say states can’t pass laws to skirt Supreme Court decisions they don’t like.

Similar legislation has been introduced in at least 14 states besides Hawaii, but none of those bills have gotten very far.

Citizens United, a conservative group, wanted to run TV commercials promoting its anti-Hillary Clinton movie when she was running for president in 2008. The high court’s ruling in its case two years later effectively struck down a ban on corporate and union election spending as long as they don’t donate directly to any campaigns.

The ruling has benefitted Democrats and Republicans. The campaign finance watchdog group OpenSecrets tracked more than $4 billion in outside political spending in the 2024 federal elections — almost 12 times as much as in 2008.

Some of that came from dark money groups that aren’t required to disclose donors, and the Brennan Center for Justice tallied a record $1.9 billion in that type of spending in 2024. Dark money has also played a part in some state-level races.

Justin Levitt, a professor at Loyola Law School who studies campaign finance law, said keeping companies from spending on elections might not make a big difference in how political spending works, noting that far more is spent by wealthy people such as Elon Musk.

Americans want to undo the Citizens United ruling, according to Tom Moore, a former Federal Elections Commission lawyer who is now a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress. The think-tank in Washington, D.C. is pushing to redefine corporations to ban spending on campaigns but allow them to lobby lawmakers.

The prohibition would also include the nonprofit organizations involved in dark money spending.

“This is a genuinely new approach to getting Citizens United out of America’s politics that is based on absolutely foundational corporation law,” he said.

If just one state adopts it, Moore said, it would be tested in court.

Hawaii Gov. Josh Green, a Democrat, hasn’t said whether he’ll sign the bill. He has to say by June 30 if he intends to veto it.

“This is an instance where a small state has a chance to make big waves on the national scene,” said state Sen. Karl Rhoads, a Democrat, who introduced the legislation. “I think we should take advantage of it.”

The office of Hawaii Attorney General Anne Lopez, a Democrat, opposed the bill, arguing in part that will be difficult and costly to defend in court.

Separately, volunteers are gathering signatures hoping to put the corporate redefinition idea — branded as The Montana Plan — before voters in that state in November.

Montana’s Supreme Court ruled in April that the effort could proceed even after Republican state Attorney General Austin Knudsen said it violates the requirement that ballot initiatives stick to one subject.

“It really resonates with citizens,” said Jeff Mangan, a former Montana state commissioner of political practices who’s leading the ballot effort. “They probably see it because they live it.”

Bradley Smith, a Republican former member of the Federal Election Commission, says Moore’s idea is not likely to pass muster in court.

“The mistake I think supporters of this are making is thinking you can ignore the substance of a Supreme Court ruling by semantic lawyerly tricks,” he said.

Lower courts likely won’t approve a measure that aims to circumvent a Supreme Court ruling and would probably reject any law that ties the provision of general government services to the behaviors of the recipients, Smith said.

If the measures take effect, he said, companies might withdraw from states rather than curtail their political spending.

Loyola’s Levitt says he’s not sure whether the effort would work, but he knows who would decide.

“The one thing I am absolutely sure of is if it got the signatures and is passed by the Montana public and is approved by the Montana courts, that the Supreme Court will want a crack at it,” he said. “There are a lot of steps between here and there.”

___

Mulvihill reported from Haddonfield, New Jersey.

OMAHA, Neb. (AP) — The fate of Nebraska’s “blue dot” — a small, but significant factor in presidential politics — will take center stage Tuesday as Democratic voters select a congressional nominee in the state’s high-profile 2nd District.

The Omaha-area district, where Republican U.S. Rep. Don Bacon is retiring, is one of the Democratic Party’s biggest targets this midterm season. It’s also a national focus every four years in presidential contests because Nebraska is one of just two states that splits its electoral votes. The 2nd District has gone to Democratic presidential candidates three out of five times since 2008 — a “blue dot” in an otherwise sea of red.

Three Democrats are seen as the top contenders in Tuesday’s primary: state Sen. John Cavanaugh, political activist Denise Powell and district court clerk Crystal Rhoades. Republican Brinker Harding, an Omaha City Council member endorsed by President Donald Trump, is running unopposed on the GOP side.

Cavanaugh, more than anyone else on Tuesday’s ballot, has been under attack from both parties.

Some Democratic opponents argue that a primary victory for Cavanaugh would jeopardize the district’s “blue dot” status because he’d be leaving his valuable state legislative seat, making it easier for Republicans in the Nebraska Legislature to change the law that allows the state to split its electoral votes.

The issue has defined the primary contest perhaps more than any other.

The Democratic argument against Cavanaugh has little to do with his politics or policies.

His opponents and groups backing them have flooded mailboxes, airwaves and social media warning that if he wins the congressional primary, Nebraska’s Republican governor would appoint a conservative Republican to replace him in the Legislature.

That move, they say, could give state Republicans enough votes to enact a conservative wish list that includes stricter limitations on abortion and transgender rights.

It could also empower Republicans to enact midcycle redistricting or change the state’s unusual system of splitting presidential electoral votes, some Democrats argue. Republicans failed in 2024 to pass a bill that would have made Nebraska the 49th state to award its Electoral College votes on a winner-take-all basis.

“Our Blue Dot. We fought hard for it. But if John Cavanaugh goes to Congress, it could all fall down,” cautions one TV ad by the super PAC New Democrat Majority.

EMILY’s List, a national group that supports women running for office, has put its reach and money behind Powell, calling Cavanaugh’s candidacy “a gift to MAGA Republicans.”

Republican groups have sent out mailers and social media posts claiming Cavanaugh “is in agreement with President Donald Trump” and showing a photo of Cavanaugh overlaid on a photo of the president, making it appear as if the two are standing together.

“Clearly, the Republicans know that I’m the strongest general election candidate,” Cavanaugh said. “And so they’re trying to hurt me.”

The attacks on Cavanaugh show Democrats and Republicans believe he has the best chance of winning the general election, said Paul Landow, a former Nebraska Democratic Party executive director.

He called the “blue dot” attacks disingenuous, noting Republicans already have a filibuster-proof majority in the Legislature but have still failed to pass key elements of their agenda because it is unpopular even among GOP lawmakers. The argument that a Cavanaugh win could weaken the state’s “blue dot” also assumes Democrats won’t pick up additional legislative seats this year, he said.

“There’s so many things that have to fall into place for this alleged danger to the ‘blue dot,’” Landow said. “It’s just wild speculation.”

While all the Democratic contenders cite affordability and opposition to Trump administration policies — from immigration and healthcare to military actions — the top three contenders began attacking one another more aggressively in the days leading up to the primary.

Candidates and allied groups have spent more than $2.6 million on TV and digital advertising since Jan. 1, according to the advertising tracking company AdImpact. Nearly all of that has been by or on behalf of Cavanaugh and Powell.

Cavanaugh has spent about $375,000. Powell’s campaign has spent almost as much — $345,000 — but with the help of groups backing her, campaign advertising has been overwhelmingly pro-Powell.

Powell co-founded Women Who Run Nebraska, a political action committee that supports progressive female candidates, and she has a decade of Democratic political activism. She’s never held office but said her deep connections have helped her with independents and third-party voters who make up nearly 30% of the district’s electorate.

“My name recognition has increased dramatically,” Powell said, adding that “people are really connecting with my message.”

Rhoades carries her own name recognition after 20 years in public service and running a slew of successful local Democratic elections — including that of Omaha Mayor John Ewing, who unseated a longtime Republican last year. Rhoades has raised a fraction of what Cavanaugh and Powell have amassed, but said she’s intentionally eschewing campaign ads and instead blanketing the city with door-knocking and personal contact with voters.

Both Powell and Rhoades have leaned heavily into the concern that Democrats’ influence in the district will erode if Cavanaugh is elected to Congress.

The winner of Tuesday’s primary will head to a highly competitive general election. Trump won the district in 2016, and the retiring Bacon, who has clashed with Trump, has held the House seat for five terms.

Also on Tuesday’s ballot is the race for U.S. Senate, where Republican incumbent Pete Ricketts is seeking a full term, following his 2023 appointment and 2024 special election victory to replace Republican Ben Sasse.

Ricketts faces four Republican primary challengers, but he’s already looking ahead to an expected general election contest against independent candidate Dan Osborn, an industrial mechanic and military veteran who came within 7 points of defeating Republican U.S. Sen. Deb Fischer in her 2024 reelection bid. Running in the Democratic primary are William Forbes and Cindy Burbank.

In the race for governor, incumbent Republican Gov. Jim Pillen faces five primary challengers, while former state Sen. Lynne Walz and frequent candidate Larry Marvin compete for the Democratic nomination. Marvin previously ran for U.S. Senate four times since 2012.

___

Peoples reported from New York.

Missouri’s top court is hearing an important legal challenge Tuesday to one of President Donald Trump’s earliest redistricting successes while lawmakers in Louisiana and South Carolina weigh whether to become the most recent Republican states to redraw U.S. House districts ahead of the midterm elections.

Rather than waning, a national redistricting battle that began 10 months ago has intensified as the November elections draw nearer — inflamed by a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling that weakened the federal Voting Rights Act and provided grounds for states to try to eliminate voting districts with large minority populations.

Missouri was the second Republican state after Texas to heed Trump’s call last year to redraw congressional districts to help the GOP win additional seats in the midterms. At issue before the Missouri Supreme Court is whether the new districts violate a state constitutional requirement to be compact, and whether they can remain in place for this year’s elections despite an initiative petition seeking to force a public referendum.

In South Carolina, the issue facing Republican lawmakers is whether redrawing the state’s lone Democratic-held seat could open the door to a clean sweep for Republicans or backfire with additional losses by making more districts competitive for Democrats. State senators must decide whether to allow consideration of a redistricting plan put forth in the House after the legislature’s regular work ends Thursday.

Congressional redistricting also is under consideration in Louisiana, where the Supreme Court’s recent ruling invalidated a majority-Black district as an illegal racial gerrymander. The state’s May 16 congressional primaries already have been postponed. What remains undecided is how many seats Republicans will try to pick up while redrawing the districts.

Alabama also is poised to switch its congressional districts for this year’s elections, after the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday overturned an order for it to use a map with two largely Black districts.

Republicans think they could gain as many as 14 seats from new House maps enacted so far in Texas, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, Florida and Tennessee. Democrats, meanwhile, think they could gain six seats from new maps in California and Utah. The Virginia Supreme Court last week struck down a redistricting effort that could have yielded four more winnable seats for Democrats.

A South Carolina House committee is to consider Tuesday whether to send a congressional redistricting plan to the full chamber for debate. The House also appears poised to pass legislation that could delay the June 9 congressional primaries until August to allow time for new districts to be enacted. That comes even as some absentee and overseas military ballots already have been cast.

But any redistricting effort also must clear the Senate, where support is less certain. Two-thirds of senators have to agree before the regular General Assembly session ends Thursday to let the legislature take up redistricting later.

Trump said on social media Monday that he was closely watching the redistricting vote, urging South Carolina senators to “be bold and courageous” and to delay the House primaries so new districts can be drawn.

Although Republicans have a supermajority in the chamber, several senators aren’t sure the proposed map guarantees the GOP will win seat held by long-serving Democratic U.S. Rep. Jim Clyburn. And they think enough Democratic voters could be pushed into other districts that the plan could backfire, resulting in a 5-2 or even a 4-3 Republican split.

Some also question whether it is fair for Republicans to get all the seats in a state where the Democratic presidential candidate has gotten at least 40% of the vote every election this century, even if Trump is asking for the new map.

State Sen. Caleb Kleinpeter, a Republican who oversees the Louisiana Senate committee tasked with redistricting, said his panel plans to vote Tuesday on a U.S. House map, with a full Senate vote expected Thursday.

The committee has several options, including versions that would leave Democrats favored in only one district or none. Kleinpeter said a map eliminating all majority-Black districts would be difficult to hold up in court.

Last Friday, dozens of people urged lawmakers to retain two majority-Black districts during a grueling nine-hour hearing that featured civil rights activists and the only four Black congressmen elected to represent the state since the end of the Reconstruction era.

Missouri currently is represented in the U.S. House by six Republicans and two Democrats under a map passed by the Republican-led legislature after the 2020 census. But with Trump’s backing, Republican state officials adopted a new map last September that improves their chances of winning an additional seat by targeting a Kansas City district held by longtime Democratic U.S. Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, who previously was the city’s first Black mayor.

The new House map places portions of Kansas City in neighboring Republican districts and stretches the remainder of Cleaver’s 5th District far eastward into Republican-heavy rural areas. A state judge in March rejected an assertion that the map violates a constitutional compactness requirement, finding that the new districts on average are more compact — even if the 5th District is not. That was appealed to the state Supreme Court.

A separate case also being argued Tuesday at the state Supreme Court contends the new districts should have been automatically suspended in December when opponents submitted more than 300,000 petition signatures seeking to force a statewide referendum.

But Republican Attorney General Catherine Hanaway and Republican Secretary of State Denny Hoskins contend the new districts can be suspended only if — and after — Hoskins determines the petition meets constitutional requirements and has enough valid signatures. Hoskins has until Aug. 4, the day of Missouri’s primary elections, to make that determination.

A state judge in March agreed with the Republicans’ position while also ruling that the plaintiffs lacked grounds to sue and had done so too soon.

___

Brook reported from Baton Rouge, Louisiana, Collins from Columbia, South Carolina, and Lieb from Jefferson City, Missouri.

By Kanishka Singh

WASHINGTON, May 11 (Reuters) – Republican U.S. Representative Jen Kiggans faced calls from Democrats to resign for agreeing with a radio host after he said Democratic lawmaker Hakeem Jeffries should get his “cotton-picking hands off of Virginia.”

Kiggans later said she was agreeing with the host that Jeffries, who is the House of Representatives minority leader and the first Black American to lead a party in Congress, should stay out of Virginia politics and that she did not condone the host’s language.

“If Hakeem Jeffries wants to be involved in Virginia politics, then I suggest he does what a bunch of New Yorkers are doing. Leave New York, move down here to Virginia. Run for office down here, you can represent us. If not, get your cotton-picking hands off of Virginia,” conservative radio host Rich Herrera said on “Richmond’s Morning News.”

“That’s right. Ditto, yes, yes to that,” Kiggans, who represents Virginia’s 2nd Congressional District, replied during the interview.

The term “cotton-picking” is considered offensive due to the U.S. history of slavery, when cotton was picked by enslaved people.

Kiggans later issued a statement on X.

“The radio host should not have used that language and I do not – and did not – condone it. It was obvious to anyone listening that I was agreeing Hakeem Jeffries should stay out of Virginia,” Kiggans’ statement said. 

Jeffries had not commented as of late Monday.

U.S. House Minority Whip Katherine Clark and California Governor Gavin Newsom said the Republican lawmaker should resign.

“Now they are using brazenly racist language to attack Black leaders,” Clark said on X.

“Every Republican should be denouncing this racist statement,” Newsom’s office added.

“I am deeply appalled by anyone who promotes this rhetoric. We are no longer enslaved on plantations. We now hold positions of power our ancestors fought for,” Democratic Virginia state Senator Aaron Rouse said in a statement.

Republicans currently hold slim majorities in the Senate and House of Representatives, but control is up for grabs in the midterm elections later this year. 

Republican President Donald Trump launched a national mid-decade redistricting battle between the two parties last ​year that is also playing out in Virginia. 

Virginia voters on April 21 approved a new Democratic-drawn congressional map in a special election that could have flipped four Republican U.S. House seats. 

But the state Supreme Court on May 8 threw out the results, ruling in favor of a Republican challenge that Democratic lawmakers did not follow proper procedures when they passed the proposed referendum and put it on the ballot.

Virginia Democrats on Monday asked the U.S. Supreme Court to revive the congressional map designed to boost their party’s chances in November’s midterm elections.

(Reporting by Kanishka Singh in Washington; Editing by Kate Mayberry)

A Montana judge has blocked the state from limiting voter registration on Election Day, concluding the move would disproportionately harm Native American and young voters.

The ruling prevents a law that was enacted last year by the Republican-controlled Legislature from being enforced that would have prevented voters from casting ballots in presidential, U.S. Senate and U.S. House races if they register after noon on Election Day. It was the second time in five years that legislators attempted to move away from Election Day registrations.

District Judge Adam Larsen’s order, issued late Friday, is to remain in effect through the trial of a lawsuit filed by the Montana Federation of Public Employees, later joined by Native American tribes, including the Blackfeet and Northern Cheyenne. However, the state’s primary elections are June 2, and the trial isn’t until late August.

Larsen, sitting in the county that’s home to the state capital of Helena, noted that registering on Election Day is “wildly popular.” Montana has allowed it since 2006, and in 2014, 57% of voters rejected a statewide ballot initiative to end it.

“The undisputed record demonstrates that a substantial number of Montana voters rely on Election Day registration, including during afternoon hours,” Larsen wrote. “The record further establishes that some voters will be unable to register prior to noon due to work schedules, travel constraints, polling place hours or unforeseen registration issues.”

Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen’s office expressed disappointment in the ruling.

“Unrestricted voter registration on Election Day puts a undue burden on Montana’s election administrators who have very important jobs ensuring our elections are secure and run smoothly,” spokesperson Chase Scheuer said in an email.

But Larsen rejected the state’s argument that the law would make administering elections easier, saying local election officials would handle voting in federal races differently from state and local races.

Montana polling places for at least 400 voters must remain open from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. on Election Day, but those for fewer voters don’t have to open until noon, something Larsen noted.

The judge said Native American voters face “unique barriers” to voting, including long travel distances and limited access to transportation. Students and other young voters face obstacles to registering because of “scheduling constraints” and because they move more frequently, he wrote.

Amanda Curtis, the Montana public employees group’s president, said its lawsuit defended “the fundamental right of every voice to be heard” from “overreaching politicians.”

The group and the tribes also challenged changes in a state law specifying which IDs students can show at the polls to register and vote, but Larsen concluded that they couldn’t show that anyone had been prevented from voting because of them. Scheuer said the changes “bolster the integrity of Montana elections.”

In 2021, the Legislature enacted a law ending voter registration on noon the day before Election Day, but the Montana Supreme Court struck it down in 2024 as a violation of an “unequivocal fundamental right” protected by the state Constitution. The justices said more than 70,000 Montana voters had taken advantage of Election Day registration since its inception.

Before legislators enacted the latest law in 2025, their staff warned in a memo that the measure could conflict with the Supreme Court’s 2024 decision.

By Nolan D. McCaskill

May 11 (Reuters) – Kevin Warsh, U.S. President Donald Trump’s pick to be the next chair of the Federal Reserve, on Monday cleared a key procedural hurdle in the Senate, moving him closer to Senate confirmation and a smooth handoff from Fed Chair Jerome Powell, whose leadership term ends on Friday.

Here are some details and context:

• The Senate is expected to follow Monday’s so-called cloture vote with a vote to confirm Warsh for a 14-year term as Fed governor as soon as Tuesday. Lawmakers would then start the confirmation process for a concurrent four-year term as Fed chair, with a vote on that nomination to come as soon as Wednesday.

• The Republican-controlled Senate is expected to approve Warsh to be the Fed’s next leader at a time when the central bank’s independence is being tested.

• Trump’s unprecedented measures to exert control over the Fed include his attempt to fire Fed Governor Lisa Cook in a case that is now before the Supreme Court, and his support for a Department of Justice investigation into Powell’s management of a building renovation. A federal judge ruled the probe was pretext for pressuring Powell to cut rates or resign.

• The DOJ dropped its investigation, but its lead prosecutor in Washington says she could reopen it, and Powell says he will stay on at the Fed until it is truly over.

• Powell says he is concerned “about the series of legal attacks on the Fed which threaten our ability to conduct monetary policy without considering political factors.” Warsh has not weighed in on the Trump administration’s actions.

• Warsh says he plans “regime change” at the Fed, including tightening its coordination with the Treasury and the administration on non-monetary policies, and setting it on course for a smaller balance sheet.

• Trump says he expects Warsh to cut rates. Warsh has said he has not made any promises to Trump on monetary policy.

• The Fed chair has one of 12 votes on interest-rate decisions, and one of 19 voices at the policy-setting table.

• At their meeting last month, Fed policymakers voted to keep the policy rate in the 3.50%-3.75% range, and three central bankers dissented to express their openness to a possible interest-rate hike.

• The Fed’s next meeting, and its first under a possible Chair Warsh, is scheduled for June 16-17.

(Reporting by Nolan McCaskill, additional reporting by Kanishka Singh; writing by Ann Saphir, Editing by Rosalba O’Brien)

WASHINGTON (AP) — The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday set the stage for Alabama to eliminate one of two largely Black congressional districts before this year’s midterm elections, creating an opening for Republicans to gain an additional U.S. House seat in a partisan battle for control of the closely divided chamber.

The decision follows a Supreme Court ruling in April that struck down a majority-Black U.S. House district in Louisiana as an unconstitutional racial gerrymander, significantly weakening a provision of the federal Voting Rights Act.

Alabama officials had pointed to the Louisiana case as reason for the Supreme Court to end a judicial order to use a court-imposed House map until after the 2030 census. The high court on Monday overturned that order and directed a lower court to reconsider the case in light of the Louisiana decision. That could free the state to instead use a map approved in 2023 by the Republican-led legislature that includes only one district where Black residents comprise a majority.

Anticipating a court reversal, Alabama officials recently enacted a law allowing it to void the results of a May 19 primary for some congressional districts and instead hold a new primary under the revised district boundaries. Alabama had asked for an expedited decision ahead of the primary.

Alabama Republicans praised the decision.

“Today, the Supreme Court vindicated the state’s long-held position. Now, the power to draw Alabama’s maps goes back to the people’s elected representatives. That’s our Legislature,” Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall said in a video statement. Marshall said his job was “to put the legislature in the best possible legal position to draw a congressional map that favors Republicans seven-to-zero.” He concluded with the statement, “Stay tuned.”

Republican House Speaker Nathaniel Ledbetter called the decision “a massive victory not just for Alabama, but for conservatives across the country.”

In a dissent to Monday’s brief ruling, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the Louisiana case had reversed only one of the grounds upon which the Alabama case had been decided. Although the Voting Rights Act violation is gone, Sotomayor said a lower court could still find that Alabama had intentionally discriminated against Black voters in violation of the 14th Amendment.

The decision was a setback for Black residents and groups that had waged a legal fight for several years to get a second Alabama congressional district where Black voters had an opportunity to elect a candidate of their choice.

“We are witnessing a return to Jim Crow. And anybody who is alarmed by these developments — as everybody should be — better be making a plan to vote in November to put an end to this madness while we still can,” NAACP National President Derrick Johnson said in a statement.

Deuel Ross, the NAACP Legal Defense Fund attorney who argued the Alabama case, said, “We will consider all of our options to fight to protect the rights of these voters and keep the court ordered map in place.”

Shalela Dowdy, a plaintiff in the Alabama redistricting case, said she was disappointed in the decision.

“For me, I feel like this is a step backwards towards the Jim Crow era for congressional representation. The state is not going to stop here,” Dowdy said, predicting Alabama will eventually go after the remaining district.

The decision comes a week ahead of the May 19 primaries, setting up a potentially confusing scenario for voters. Alabama lawmakers last week approved legislation to allow special primaries in four impacted congressional districts if the state is able to switch maps. The special elections would be set by the governor.

Alabama Secretary of State Wes Allen called the decision a “historic win for Alabama voters.” Allen said the May 19 primaries will proceed as scheduled and his office will remain in close contact with the governor’s office “as this situation continues developing.”

The change would give Republicans a chance to reclaim the district now represented by Rep. Shomari Figures, a Democrat. Figures was elected in 2024 under the court-ordered map. His election gave the state — where Black residents comprise more than one quarter of the population — two Black representatives in its congressional delegation for the first time in history.

Figures called the Supreme Court action an “incredibly unfortunate decision” that “sets the stage for Alabama to go back to the 1950s and ’60s in terms of Black political representation in the state.”

Alabama is one of several states trying to change their congressional district boundaries before the November elections as part of a nationwide redistricting battle being won, so far, by Republicans.

Voting districts typically are redrawn once a decade, immediately after a census, to account for population changes. But President Donald Trump urged Texas Republicans last year to redraw congressional districts to their advantage in a bid to hold onto a narrow House majority in the midterm elections.

Democrats in California countered with their own redistricting. And numerous Republican-led states have followed. The high court’s Louisiana ruling provided fuel for Republicans to intensify their redistricting efforts.

So far, Republicans think they could win as many as 14 additional seats in the November elections from new districts enacted in Texas, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, Florida and Tennessee. Democrats think they could win up to six additional seats from new districts in California and Utah. But Democrats suffered a major setback when the Virginia Supreme Cour t overturned a voter-approved redistricting amendment that could have yielded four more seats for the party.

___

Lieb reported from Jefferson City, Missouri, and Chandler from Montgomery, Alabama.

By Dietrich Knauth

NEW YORK, May 11 (Reuters) – President Donald Trump’s administration on Monday asked a U.S. court to pause its ruling against the administration’s 10% global tariff while the federal government pursues an appeal.

• The U.S. trade court ruled against the new tariffs on May 8, but did not widely block their collection

• The Trump administration appealed on Friday

• If the trade court pauses its ruling, tariffs would resume for three importers who sued over the tariffs

• The 10% global tariff was imposed in February, after the U.S. Supreme Court shot down most of the tariffs that Trump imposed in 2025

• The 10% global tariffs are scheduled to expire in July, unless extended by Congress

• The latest global tariffs were imposed under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974

(Reporting by Dietrich Knauth; Editing by David Gregorio)

By John Kruzel

WASHINGTON, May 11 (Reuters) – The U.S. Supreme Court cleared the way on Monday for Alabama Republicans to pursue a congressional voting map more favorable to their party ahead of November’s midterm elections, the latest fallout from the court’s seismic voting rights ruling.

The justices lifted a lower court’s decision that had blocked state Republicans’ preferred map as racially discriminatory and for illegally diluting the voting power of Black Alabamians.

The politically conservative Southern state is expected to seek to revert to this previous map, which would drop the number of districts where Black voters comprise a majority, or near-majority, from two to one out of the state’s seven U.S. House districts. Use of the previous map could be beneficial to Republicans.

The order was powered by the nine-member court’s conservative majority. The three liberal justices dissented and suggested that the lower court could reapply its judicial block to the Alabama Republicans’ preferred map.

President Donald Trump’s fellow Republicans are fighting to maintain their control of the House, as well as the Senate, in the midterm elections.

Alabama is among a group of Republican-led states that has sought to eliminate majority-Black congressional districts and boost their party’s chances ahead of the elections following the Supreme Court’s ruling undercutting a key provision of the Voting Rights Act. Black voters tend to support Democratic candidates.

In its landmark April 29 ruling, the court, in a 6-3 decision powered by its conservative members, struck down an electoral map that had given Louisiana a second Black-majority U.S. ​congressional district. The redrawn map, the majority ruled, had relied too heavily on race in violation of the constitutional equal protection principle.

Following the Supreme Court’s decision, Alabama immediately filed emergency motions asking the justices to allow it to revert to an older map with only a single majority-Black district.

Alabama, where Black voters make up a quarter of the electorate, had been ordered by a lower court to use a map that includes two majority-Black districts out of seven. Both are held by Black Democrats.

The lower court decided that a prior map had intentionally discriminated against Black voters and unlawfully diluted their voting power.

Alabama officials had argued in Supreme Court filings that Alabama’s court-ordered map shared the same constitutional defects as Louisiana’s.

Alabama’s Republican Attorney General Steve Marshall in a social media post called Monday’s order a “major victory at the U.S. Supreme Court.”

“For too long, unelected federal judges have had more say over Alabama’s elections than Alabama’s voters,” Marshall wrote. “That ended today.”

Deuel Ross, a lawyer at the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund who represents a group of plaintiffs in the case, said his clients were “deeply disappointed that the Supreme Court has temporarily cleared the way for Alabama to use an intentionally discriminatory map.”

“The court’s decision interferes with the ongoing election and puts the validity of the votes of thousands of early voters into doubt,” Ross said. “We will consider all of our options to reinstate the court-ordered map and protect the rights of voters.”

DISSENT SUGGESTS LOWER COURT CAN AGAIN BLOCK NEW MAP

In a dissent, liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor emphasized that the lower court’s ruling concerning Alabama’s map was more expansive than the case involving Louisiana and included a finding of unconstitutional discrimination by intentionally diluting the votes of Black voters in Alabama.

The majority’s decision to set aside the lower court’s ruling is therefore “inappropriate and will cause only confusion as Alabamians begin to vote in the elections scheduled for next week,” Sotomayor wrote in a dissent that was joined by her two fellow liberal justices.

She said the lower court “remains free on remand to decide for itself whether Callais has any bearing on its Fourteenth Amendment analysis or if its prior reasoning is unaffected by that decision,” referring to the court’s April 29 decision, called Louisiana v. Callais.

In 2023, the court had upheld the lower court’s decision that the state’s Republican-drawn electoral map diluted Black voters’ power, violating the Voting Rights Act. That 5-4 ruling was authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, and he was joined by fellow conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh and the court’s three liberal justices.

In a process called redistricting, the boundaries of legislative districts across the United States are reconfigured to reflect population changes as measured by the national census conducted every 10 years. Redistricting typically has been carried out by state legislatures once per decade.

Republicans and Democrats have been waging a multistate redistricting fight ignited last year when Trump initiated an unprecedented mid-decade effort to redraw maps in Republican-led states, starting with Texas.

(Reporting by John Kruzel with additional reporting by Andrew Chung; Editing by Nia Williams and Stephen Coates)

WASHINGTON (AP) — Democrats on Monday filed an emergency appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court seeking to halt a Virginia ruling invalidating a ballot measure that would have given their party an additional four winnable U.S. House seats.

The move came after the Virginia Supreme Court on Friday struck down a constitutional amendment that voters narrowly passed just last month. The 4-3 state court decision found that the Democratic-controlled legislature improperly began the process of placing the amendment on the ballot after early voting had begun in the Virginia’s general election last fall.

Democrats argued unsuccessfully that the U.S. Supreme Court has held that, even if early voting is underway, an election does not happen until Election Day itself.

The appeal is the latest twist in the nation’s mid-decade redistricting competition. It was kicked off last year by President Donald Trump urging Republican-controlled states to redraw their lines and was supercharged by a recent Supreme Court ruling severely weakening the Voting Rights Act.

“The Court overrode the will of the people who ratified the amendment by ordering the Commonwealth to conduct its election with the congressional districts that the people rejected,” wrote lawyers for Virginia Democrats and the state’s Democratic Attorney General, Jay Jones. They added, “The irreparable harm resulting from the Supreme Court of Virginia’s decision is profound and immediate.”

The filing is a sign of Democratic desperation after the Virginia decision deprived them of four winnable House seats in the mid-decade redistricting race that President Donald Trump kicked off last year. Democrats are still favorites to recapture the House of Representatives, but their GOP rivals have claimed to have gained more than a dozen seats through redistricting. The voter-approved Virginia map would have partly offset that.

Democrats are taking a legal long shot in asking the justices to reverse the Virginia court’s ruling. The Supreme Court tries to avoid second-guessing state courts’ interpretations of their own constitutions. In 2023, it turned down a request by North Carolina Republicans to overrule a state Supreme Court decision that blocked the GOP’s congressional map.

Politically, the appeal could help a party struggling to compete with Republicans in the unusual mid-decade redrawing of congressional boundaries by providing fodder for election-year messaging about a partisan Supreme Court. The court recently allowed Louisiana Republicans to proceed with redistricting after the justices struck down a majority Black district as an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.

Democrats have been set on their heels because, days after the Virginia ballot measure passed, the Supreme Court’s conservatives reversed decades of rulings and effectively neutered the Voting Rights Act, paving the way for Southern states to eliminate some majority Black districts and further pad Republican margins in Congress.

The Virginia amendment had been launched long before that ruling. It was intended as a response to Republican gains in Texas, Missouri, North Carolina and Ohio, and to blunt a new map in Florida that just became law. Once the Virginia amendment passed, it briefly turned the nationwide redistricting scramble into a draw between the two parties.

That was unraveled by the Virginia Supreme Court’s decision. The justices are appointed by the legislature, which has flipped between the two parties in recent decades, and the body is generally not seen as having a clear ideological bent.

__

Riccardi reported from Denver.