Florida PASSES Map Giving GOP 4 House Seats - Dems SCREAM, Throw Papers in Hissy Fit
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Florida House of Representatives approved Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis’ congressional redistricting plan on Wednesday morning in a vote of 83-28. The measure is expected to potentially flip up to four U.S. House seats to Republicans ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.
Rep. Angie Nixon, a Democratic contender for the U.S. Senate from Jacksonville, interrupted the voting process by yelling that the map “was out of order.” Later on Wednesday, the Florida Senate was scheduled to vote on the map. The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision regarding Louisiana’s voting map, which found that legislators there had unlawfully utilized race to create a new majority-minority district, prompted that chamber to take a recess.
The House rejected a Democratic move to postpone in light of the decision on a voice vote. DeSantis has previously stated that if the court ruled as he anticipated, the Legislature would be “forced” to redesign the state’s map. “Called this one months ago,” the governor posted on social media. “The decision implicates a district in FL — the legal infirmities of which have been corrected in the newly-drawn (and soon to be enacted) map.”
If the Senate passes the map and DeSantis signs it into law, Florida would become the latest state to redistrict its congressional delegation in the middle of the decade, following red states such as Texas, North Carolina, and Missouri. This comes as the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Louisiana’s congressional map on Wednesday and sharply limited the use of race in drawing district boundaries in a major ruling that could carry significant consequences for future House elections.
Louisiana had been ordered by lower courts to create a second majority-Black congressional district in 2024 to comply with Section 2 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, which bars states from diluting minority voting strength. The Trump administration and state officials challenged the revised map, arguing it amounted to an unconstitutional racial gerrymander in violation of the 14th Amendment, which guarantees equal protection under the law.
About one-third of Louisiana’s residents are African-American, and the state’s only two Democratic lawmakers in Congress (compared to four House Republicans) were elected from majority-black districts. The justices initially addressed the Louisiana map case during the 2024-25 term. In an unusual move, they ordered both sides to restate their arguments to consider the implications of both the 14th and 15th Amendments. The 15th Amendment, in particular, prohibits states from denying citizens equal protection under the law or restricting their rights based on race.
The ruling carries immense weight, with two prominent voting rights organizations noting earlier that the removal or restriction of Section 2 will likely empower Republican-led legislatures to change the boundaries of as many as 19 congressional districts to their advantage, in order to comply with the court. “However, it’s not clear if red states will be able to seize on the Supreme Court’s decision in time to significantly impact the 2026 midterms, in which Democrats are favored to retake the House of Representatives,” the New York Post reported. This would enable mapmakers to emphasize Republican strengths.
Voting rights organizations aligned with the Democratic Party already warned that the removal or restriction of Section 2 could empower Republican-led legislatures to change the boundaries of as many as 19 congressional districts to their advantage. Fair Fight Action and the Black Voters Matter Fund argue that if Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act is invalidated, it could significantly increase the likelihood that Republicans will maintain control of the House of Representatives for years. Research has identified 27 congressional seats nationwide that Republicans could benefit from if the current legal and political landscape remains unchanged. Nineteen of these changes are directly tied to the potential loss of Section 2 protections.
The SCOTUS ruling will prompt many states to redraw maps ahead of November’s elections. The developments in Florida and the Supreme Court’s Louisiana decision reflect the broader national battle over congressional maps ahead of the 2026 midterms. Courts have increasingly become the deciding factor in determining whether new congressional maps can be implemented. The outcomes could have significant implications for control of the U.S. House, with both parties engaged in aggressive redistricting strategies in recent cycles. The Florida map approval provides a potential gain for Republicans, while the Louisiana ruling could influence similar efforts in other states.
Legal experts note that procedural compliance and constitutional requirements will play a central role in ongoing redistricting disputes. The referendum’s narrow passage and subsequent legal challenges in various states highlight the high stakes involved in mid-decade redistricting efforts. Both parties continue to monitor developments closely as the midterm election cycle approaches, with redistricting disputes likely to shape the political landscape in multiple states.
Top Democrat SHREDDED After Backing Graham Platner - His Career Is Over
Washington, D.C. - June 7, 2026
Rep. Ro Khanna Endorses Graham Platner for Maine Senate Despite Allegations of Past Misconduct
Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) has publicly endorsed Graham Platner, the Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate in Maine, even as Platner faces allegations of abusive behavior in past relationships. A New York Times report this week detailed claims from an ex-girlfriend alleging volatile and abusive conduct.
Platner has denied the allegations of physical abuse. In an interview with MSNBC’s Chris Hayes, he stated that the ex-girlfriend was lying about the abuse claims. He also criticized the media coverage as “journalistic malpractice” and accused the whistleblower of political motivation.
Platner has additionally addressed a Nazi-themed tattoo he received, stating that he did not know the design at the time it was applied. He described allegations that he knew the tattoo’s meaning as politically motivated.
Khanna’s Defense of Platner
Khanna acknowledged the New York Times report and described some of Platner’s past relationships as “toxic and volatile.” He stated that no one should make excuses for the past conduct or attack the women who came forward. Khanna added that Platner has “sought redemption,” “took accountability,” and has “worked to be a better man, a better human being.”
During a rally for Platner in Maine, Khanna attributed some of the candidate’s past difficulties to his service in the War on Terror, suggesting that the experience “broke” him and thousands of other veterans. He stated that sometimes the country itself feels “broken.”
Platner previously made public comments blaming women for being raped, which have also drawn criticism during the campaign.
Campaign Context
Platner is seeking the Democratic nomination for the open Senate seat in Maine. The race has drawn national attention as Democrats work to retain or expand their presence in the chamber. Khanna, often described in media reports as a progressive voice within the party, has positioned his support for Platner around themes of personal growth and accountability.
The allegations and Khanna’s response have generated discussion within Democratic circles about candidate vetting and standards for elected officials. Platner has maintained that he is committed to moving forward and representing Maine in the Senate.
The Democratic primary in Maine remains competitive, with vote counting and candidate positioning continuing in the weeks ahead of the general election.
Judge Delivers Ruling on Mail-In Ballots as Election is Too Close To Call
Washington, D.C. - June 7, 2026
Federal Judge Denies Immediate Injunction Against Trump Executive Order on Mail-In Voting
U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols ruled on May 28 that a request by Democrats for a preliminary injunction against President Donald Trump’s March 31 executive order on mail-in voting was premature. The judge concluded that federal agencies had not yet taken concrete steps to implement the order, so no immediate harm had been demonstrated.
Trump’s executive order directs federal agencies to compile a list of confirmed U.S. citizens and requires the U.S. Postal Service to deliver mail-in ballots only to voters appearing on approved state mail-in voting lists.
Democrats challenged the order in court, arguing that it exceeds presidential authority and could affect voting access for millions of Americans. Nichols did not issue a ruling on the legality of the executive order itself. He determined only that the plaintiffs had not shown sufficient grounds for immediate judicial intervention at this stage.
The decision leaves existing voting procedures unchanged for now. No alterations to how Americans currently cast ballots have taken effect as a result of the ruling.
Appeal and Ongoing Litigation
The Democratic Party has formally appealed the May 28 decision. Legal challenges to the executive order are proceeding on multiple fronts. A separate lawsuit filed in Massachusetts by several voting rights organizations seeks to block portions of the order. A federal judge in Boston is scheduled to hear arguments in that case.
On May 29, the U.S. Postal Service proposed a rule that would require states to provide lists of voters who receive mail-in ballots. The proposal is undergoing a 30-day public comment period before any final action.
The Massachusetts lawsuit was brought by groups including the League of Women Voters, the League of Women Voters of Massachusetts, the Association of Americans Resident Overseas, the U.S. Vote Foundation, OCA–Asian Pacific American Advocates, and Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, Inc. The plaintiffs are represented by organizations including the American Civil Liberties Union, the Brennan Center for Justice, the Legal Defense Fund, Asian Americans Advancing Justice, and LatinoJustice PRLDEF.
Plaintiffs’ attorneys argued that the Constitution reserves authority over election rules to the states and Congress, not the president. They expressed concern that the order could affect organizations assisting voters who rely on mail-in ballots, including overseas voters, military families, seniors, voters with disabilities, students, and rural residents.
Administration Position
The administration has defended the executive order as a measure to strengthen election security and improve verification processes. The Justice Department has not yet commented on the appeal of the May 28 ruling.
The executive order remains in effect while litigation continues. Federal courts are expected to play a significant role in determining the scope of presidential authority over election procedures in the coming months. Multiple lawsuits are advancing simultaneously, and additional rulings are anticipated before future federal elections.
BREAKING: Winner of California Governor Race Announced - This is INSANE
Sacramento, California - June 7, 2026
Xavier Becerra Advances to November General Election in California Governor’s Race
Former Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra has secured a place in California’s November gubernatorial election under the state’s top-two primary system. CNN’s Decision Desk projected on Friday that Becerra would advance after building a lead over other candidates competing for one of the top two spots.
The projection ensures that a Democratic candidate will appear on the November ballot. Becerra posted a video on X stating, “I’m so humbled and honored to be moving on to the general election to become your next governor. Let’s go win this thing.”
While Becerra’s advancement is confirmed, the contest for the second position remains open. Former Fox News host Steve Hilton, the Republican candidate endorsed by President Donald Trump, continues to compete for that spot along with Democratic billionaire Tom Steyer. Election officials have not yet projected a final outcome for second place.
Since Election Day, Becerra has expanded his lead over both Hilton and Steyer in updated vote counts.
Primary Campaign Context
California’s top-two primary system allows the two highest vote-getters to advance regardless of party. Democrats had expressed concern that a crowded field could result in two Republicans advancing. Becerra’s strong performance has prevented that outcome.
Several prominent Democrats declined to enter the race, including former Vice President Kamala Harris and U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla. Early in the campaign, former Rep. Katie Porter briefly led in some polls before her campaign ended following the circulation of controversial videos. Later, then-Rep. Eric Swalwell entered the race in late 2025 but withdrew after reports of alleged sexual misconduct, which he denied. Swalwell also resigned from Congress.
Becerra, a former California attorney general and U.S. representative, centered his campaign on his government experience and record managing complex issues. Critics during the primary raised questions about his handling of the child migrant crisis, the federal response to the mpox outbreak, and a case in which a former chief of staff pleaded guilty to fraud involving campaign funds. Becerra has not been accused of wrongdoing in that matter.
Former Biden White House Chief of Staff Ron Klain previously told CNN that Becerra inherited difficult situations and worked to address them.
Broader Election Landscape
California has approximately 4.6 million more registered Democrats than Republicans. The last Republican elected governor was Arnold Schwarzenegger, who won reelection in 2006.
In the Los Angeles mayoral race, incumbent Democrat Karen Bass has already advanced to the November ballot. Independent candidate Spencer Pratt currently holds second place, though Democratic City Councilwoman Nithya Raman has gained ground as additional ballots are counted.
Vote counting continues in several California races, with final results in some contests expected to take additional time.
