Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Miles Archer

(20,475 posts)
Wed Oct 8, 2025, 05:30 PM Wednesday

Supreme Court ruling could let GOP add 19 House seats and "clear the path for a one-party system"

Supreme Court ruling could let GOP add 19 House seats and “clear the path for a one-party system”

https://www.salon.com/2025/10/08/supreme-court-ruling-could-let-gop-add-19-house-seats-and-clear-the-path-for-a-one-party-system/

As the Supreme Court prepares to rehear Louisiana v. Callais on October 15, Democratic voting rights groups are sounding the alarm: in a new report reviewed by Politico, Fair Fight Action and Black Voters Matter Fund warn that scrapping Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act could enable Republicans to redraw up to 19 House seats in their favor.

“While a ruling in time for next year’s midterms is unlikely, the organizations behind the report said that it’s not out of the question. Taken together, the groups identified 27 total seats that Republicans could redistrict in their favor ahead of the midterms — 19 of which stem from Section 2 being overturned,” Politico reports.

“Doing so would ‘clear the path for a one-party system where power serves the powerful and silences the people,” Black Voters Matter Fund co-founder LaTosha Brown said in a statement.

The report warns that as many as 30% of Congressional Black Caucus seats and 11% of Congressional Hispanic Caucus seats could be redrawn out of existence.

7 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Supreme Court ruling could let GOP add 19 House seats and "clear the path for a one-party system" (Original Post) Miles Archer Wednesday OP
Not a matter of "IF" popsdenver Wednesday #1
WTAF??? a kennedy Wednesday #2
Just expect for SCOTUS to scrap Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act ... aggiesal Wednesday #3
They will probably Bettie Wednesday #4
It will be a small set than that ... aggiesal Wednesday #5
Thanks for not saying I'm crazy Bettie Wednesday #6
The protests that SC justices faced overturning Roe V. Wade should start NOW on THIS issue, Jack Valentino Wednesday #7

popsdenver

(622 posts)
1. Not a matter of "IF"
Wed Oct 8, 2025, 08:26 PM
Wednesday

but "WHEN" as with the countless number of our other suspicions these past NINE years, ...........almost all of which have come to fruition.........

aggiesal

(10,379 posts)
3. Just expect for SCOTUS to scrap Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act ...
Wed Oct 8, 2025, 08:38 PM
Wednesday

This is one of the signature ACT's that the Heritage Foundation wants completely demolished.

Bettie

(18,947 posts)
4. They will probably
Wed Oct 8, 2025, 09:14 PM
Wednesday

just scrap the whole thing, just declare that there is not a "right" to vote for anyone but white, Christian men.

I mean, it sounds crazy, you're thinking "They can't do that!"...but they can and if it suits their agenda, they will.

aggiesal

(10,379 posts)
5. It will be a small set than that ...
Wed Oct 8, 2025, 09:24 PM
Wednesday

Only "right" to vote for white, Christian men that own property.

This one person, one vote will disappear as well, where if you own multiple properties, then you will be allow to vote in all districts where you own property.
One billionaire could possibly have 100+ votes.

Bettie

(18,947 posts)
6. Thanks for not saying I'm crazy
Wed Oct 8, 2025, 09:40 PM
Wednesday

because that is the way they are moving, toward an aristocracy with the horrific orange man's family as the "royal family".

Jack Valentino

(3,558 posts)
7. The protests that SC justices faced overturning Roe V. Wade should start NOW on THIS issue,
Wed Oct 8, 2025, 10:28 PM
Wednesday

BEFORE they issue any decision on the case, NOT after!


Any such decision would be a clear signal that the BALLOT HAS FAILED,
leaving only ONE other alternative!






Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Supreme Court ruling coul...