The last time Texas engaged in mid-decade re-redistricting, back in 2006, I filed an amicus brief in the Supreme Court for myself, Burt Neuborne, and Sam Issacharoff. Our brief urged the Court to hold that states have no power under the Elections Clause to engage in mid-decade redistricting absent court order (or possibly extraordinary circumstances).

We argued that if states were permitted to do so, it would likely trigger a retaliatory set of responses in other states:

“Moreover, were mid-decade redistricting to be permitted, the political parties would inevitably engage in retaliatory re-redistricting — particularly when partisan control of the House is closely divided. In the dormant commerce clause context, this Court recognized long ago that the appropriate means to address discriminatory state commercial laws was not for states to enact retaliatory discriminatory laws of their own; instead, this Court declares such laws unconstitutional, lest a downward spiral of retaliation, in which national prosperity is drained, ensue. See C & A Carbone, Inc. v. Town of Clarkstown, 511 U.S. 383, 390 (1994) (condemning “local economic protectionism, laws that would excite those jealousies and retaliatory measures that the Constitution was de- signed to prevent. See THE FEDERALIST NO. 22 143-145 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961) (A. Hamilton); James Madison, Vices of the Political System of the United States, in 2 WRITINGS OF JAMES MADISON 362-363 (G. Hunt ed. 1901).”). The Court should instead stop this cycle in its inception by recognizing that the Constitution does not authorize states to engage in mid-decade redistricting, at least absent judicial compulsion or extraordinary circumstance.”

We also pointed out that there was no history and practice of mid-decade redistricting in the 20th century and that absent any judicial constraints, but was emerging in this era for specific reasons:

“No constitutional compulsion — indeed, no legal compulsion of any sort — exists for state legislatures to engage in redistricting during the decade as partisan political prospects wax and wane in particular states. Indeed, nothing in our historical experience compels this extraordinary assumption of power by the state legislatures. In the 20th century, there had been no practice of mid-decade congressional redistricting of which we are aware before mid-decade redistricting efforts suddenly erupted this decade. Rather, the emergence of this practice results from a combination of (1) closely balanced partisan control of the House and (2) technological breakthroughs in election data bases and computer technology that enable “perfecting” the self-interested creation of overwhelmingly safe districts. The partisan margin of power in the House has hung in the balance for a more sustained period than at any time over the past 100 years; when partisan control was last divided as closely, numerous state legislative schemes sprung up to manipulate congressional elections.²⁰ National legislation and constitutional law now prohibit most of the offending historical practices, such as legislative manipulations of suffrage rules and vote fraud. But given the allure of political power, efforts to invent new practices not yet prohibited — such as mid-decade redistricting — will inevitably arise again when partisan control of the House is at stake.”
 

Rather than arguing for this position under the Equal Protection Clause, we argued the Court should recognize the Elections Clause as an enumerated power. Just as the Court had been enforcing limits on Congress’ enumerated powers since the 1990s, we argued the Court should enforce limits on the enumerated power state legislatures have to draw congressional districts.

Washington Post:

Attorney General Pam Bondi has ordered a grand jury investigation into allegations that Obama administration officials broke federal laws while investigating Russia’s involvement in the 2016 election, according to a person familiar with the matter, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the ongoing probe.

The Justice Department declined to comment on the investigation, and it remained unclear whether prosecutors had settled on specific targets or crimes they believe occurred.
Still, the development marked a significant escalation in the Justice Department’s push to relitigate one of President Donald Trump’s long-standing grievances and comes as critics have argued those efforts are an attempt by the White House to use the department to punish Trump’s political foes.

Politico:

A federal appeals court has ruled that Texas may enforce a state law that invalidates mail-in ballots submitted without a voter’s state identification number or partial Social Security number.

A three-judge panel of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled unanimously that the requirement the Texas Legislature enacted in 2021 as part of an election-integrity bill known as SB1 did not violate a federal law preventing states from imposing voting requirements “not material” to the validity of ballots.

In a brusque, nine-page opinion, Judge James Ho twice said the appeals panel had “little difficulty” concluding that Texas’ law was valid.

“The number-matching requirements are obviously designed to confirm that every mail-in voter is who he claims he is,” Ho wrote for the panel. “And that is plainly material to determining whether an individual is qualified to vote.”

The judges said that merely requiring applications to list the voter’s name and address was insufficient to address security concerns.

“That information is easily available to anyone who simply requests it,” wrote Ho, a Trump appointee. “As a result, any person can request and receive that information about a registered voter, use that information to apply for a mail-in ballot, and then cast the ballot, with minimal risk of detection.”

Washington Post:

Over four months, I’ve drafted 65 notes debunking conspiracy theories on topics ranging from airplane crashes to Ben & Jerry’s ice cream. I’ve tried to flag fake artificial intelligence-generated video clips, viral hoax security threats and false reports about an ICE partnership with DoorDash.

Only three of them got published, all related to July’s Texas floods. That’s an overall success rate of less than 5 percent. My proposed notes were on topics other news outlets — including Snopes, NewsGuard and Bloomberg News — had decided were worth publishing their own fact checks about.

Zuckerberg fired professional fact-checkers, leaving users to fight falsehoods with community notes. As the main line of defense against hoaxes and deliberate liars exploiting our attention, community notes appear — so far — nowhere near up to the task.

Feeds filled with inaccurate information matter for the 54 percent of American adults who, according to Pew Research Center, get news from social media.

Zuckerberg’s decision to fire fact-checkers was widely criticized as a craven attempt to appeal to President Donald Trump. He said Meta was adopting the crowdsourced community notes system used by Elon Musk’s X because users would be more trustworthy and less biased than fact-checkers. Before notes get published to posts, enough users have to agree they’re helpful. But agreement turns out to be more complicated than it sounds.

New Hampshire Statesman

For New Hampshire disability rights advocates, the slate of election-related bills signed by Gov. Kelly Ayotte last week represents a mixed bag. 

On the one hand, Ayotte signed bipartisan legislation to require that all cities and towns provide accessible voting machines at local elections — not just those with state and federal candidates.

On the other, Ayotte also approved a bill that would include more documentation requirements for absentee voters. 

Republicans and other supporters of that bill say the new registration requirements bring in needed oversight in New Hampshire’s elections, and make absentee voters face the same process as in-person voters. Disability rights groups say they could be difficult for some to comply with and could discourage them from voting.

New York Times:

[A]s far as they are from the political action this week, towns like Laredo along the Southwestern border are crucial to Republicans’ plans to flip five of Texas’ U.S. House seats from blue to red.

Texas Republicans are hoping that the surge of Hispanic support for President Trump in 2024, which was especially sharp in South Texas, will last through the 2026 midterm elections. They also hope that voters, Hispanic or not, in districts like the currently Democratic one around Laredo will not be overly angry about the Republicans’ aggressive mid-decade redistricting push, a hardball tactic to retain power in Washington that is being pressed by Mr. Trump.

Politico:

Former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is ready to campaign against a partisan gerrymandering plan that current officeholder Gavin Newsom is hoping to place on the November ballot, according to a spokesperson.

“He calls gerrymandering evil, and he means that. He thinks it’s truly evil for politicians to take power from people,” said Schwarzenegger spokesperson Daniel Ketchell. “He’s opposed to what Texas is doing, and he’s opposed to the idea that California would race to the bottom to do the same thing.”

California’s last Republican governor was the leading man behind the pair of constitutional amendments that more than a decade ago yanked authority for drawing legislative districts from politicians and placed it in the hands of a newly created independent commission. After the successes of those two measures at the California ballot, Schwarzenegger campaigned for similar changes (with mixed results) in Michigan, Colorado, Virginia and Ohio.

Now, the fight has returned to his home state, as Newsom aims to redraw California’s U.S. House maps before the midterm elections to offset a similar Republican-led effort unfolding in Texas. Since such a move would undo the constitutional language added by the Schwarzenegger amendments, it would require voter approval. Newsom said today he is “very” confident he can secure the two-thirds legislative supermajority he would need to put the question on a November special-election ballot.

Schwarzenegger is preparing to take a starring role in a “No” campaign, reuniting many of the forces that came together in 2008 to pass Prop 11 (which created the commission for California legislative maps) and in 2010 for Prop 20 (which extended its authority to congressional maps). Several of the leading outside groups that gave good-government ballast to the earlier efforts — including the League of Women Voters and California Common Cause — are challenging Newsom’s proposal.

Politico:  

California’s Texas-thwarting gerrymander has swiftly transformed from fantasy to reality.

Democrats in the House and the state Legislature are coalescing around a plan to draw a half-dozen Republican incumbents into oblivion — and persuade California voters to approve the new congressional maps before next year’s midterms. Party leaders are closely tracking the dual-track developments in which lawmakers in Texas and California are moving, in partisan parallel, to shore up their respective party’s House majorities. California Republicans are casting about for a way to avoid extinction.

It all points to a high-stakes, big-dollar brawl thrusting California to the center of the political universe.

“Legally, we can do it,” said Xavier Becerra, a Democratic gubernatorial candidate and former Biden Cabinet secretary who is working with a voting rights institute that has briefed lawmakers. “Politically, we must do it.”

It could result in as many as five new blue seats and Democrats holding all but four of California’s 52 congressional districts, according to a slide presented to members of Congress and viewed by POLITICO. That analysis tracks with the presentation to Democrats in Sacramento, which envisioned forcing out GOP incumbents including Reps. David Valadao, Kevin Kiley and Darrell Issa.

The redistricting sprint has accelerated over the last week. On Thursday, Gov. Gavin Newsom confirmed he intended to call a special election, likely in November. Over the weekend, as Texas Democrats sought to forestall a vote by fleeing the state, California House delegation leaders gave state lawmakers their most extensive briefing to date, including internal polling that found the gambit starting with a slender lead.

On Monday, members of the California delegation discussed their plan for mounting a redistricting campaign in the deep-blue state, according to five people familiar with the situation.

“Trump wants to change the rules so he can continue to use the full power of the federal government to punish California with zero congressional oversight,” Rep. Zoe Lofgren, who briefed state and federal colleagues, said in a statement. “If these GOP mid-decade redistricting efforts do come to pass, our congressional delegation stands ready to work with our state legislative partners to respond. We will fight back.”

Politico:

About two-dozen Texas Democrats huddled around a monitor inside a hotel auditorium just west of Chicago Monday to watch as their Republican colleagues gaveled back into session and threatened “consequences” for their mass departure.

Minutes later, as they stared at their phones, Gov. Greg Abbott celebrated the ordering of their arrest. The atmosphere, according to a person in the room, remained tense while the bell rang to call the session to order but turned more defiant and boisterous during the speakers’ remarks and press conference.

More than a thousand miles away in Austin, Texas, the Democrats who didn’t flee the state hunkered down for the final 15 days of a special legislative session set to end Aug. 19. They gathered to address, in part, a mid-decade redistricting proposal pushed by President Donald Trump.

The splitscreen capped a 24-hour frenzy that began when dozens of Texas Democrats fled the state to protest the remapped congressional lines designed to keep Republicans in power during next year’s crucial midterms. And it underscored the high stakes of the standoff: A president clamoring to cling to partisan control at every level — helped by a high-profile red state governor — facing a coup from the opposing party.

And despite an uncertain endgame and the possibility of Abbott simply calling for another special session, Democrats here are planning extended stays and making arrangements for children and relatives to visit them, according to one person close to the lawmakers who was granted anonymity to speak freely about a sensitive matter.

Democrats, who broke quorum by leaving the Lone Star State, now face an uncertain path. Past quorum breaks, like their 2021 effort to block passage of an elections bill, have been minimally successful.

Without the necessary number of legislators needed to conduct business, the Republican-controlled state House can’t vote on the plan that could cement its party’s power in Congress next year.

Interesting new study here. Abstract:

In seven studies, we investigated how reporting partial vote counts influences perceptions of election legitimacy. Beliefs in election fraud, as in the 2020 U.S. presidential election, may be fueled by the cumulative redundancy bias (CRB), which skews perceptions toward early leaders in partial vote counts. In line with this prediction, participants (Prolific adult participants from the United States and the United Kingdom) consistently rated early leaders more favorably and were more likely to suspect fraud when the eventual winner gained a late lead. This effect persisted across simulated elections (Studies 1–3) and real-world vote counts from the 2020 election in Georgia (Study 4). It is important to note that fraud suspicions already arose before the count was completed (Study 5) and persisted despite explanatory interventions (Study 6). Partisanship did not eliminate the CRB’s influence on fraud beliefs (Study 7). Our findings suggest that the sequential reporting of vote counts may amplify false perceptions of election fraud and could be mitigated by revising how results are communicated.

From Votebeat’s Carrie Walker:

Pennsylvania voters encountered only scattered voting-machine malfunctions that rarely affected their ability to cast ballots in recent elections, according to a Votebeat and Spotlight PA analysis of problems reported to the state.

Counties reported a smattering of common problems with machines at polling places, such as paper jams and error messages. They typically got such issues fixed quickly by having technicians on call or simply replacing the machine.

… 

Pennsylvania appears to be the only state to require counties to report voting system malfunctions after each election. The requirement is the result of an August 2023 legal settlement between the Department of State and a coalition of election security groups. Votebeat and Spotlight PA analyzed the reports for three elections since the requirement took effect: the November 2023 municipal election, the 2024 primary and the 2024 general election. The 2025 primary election reports haven’t yet been published.

The reports reviewed by Votebeat and Spotlight PA showed:

• The most common problems were ballots getting jammed in a machine, issues with scanning ballots, or the machine displaying some kind of error message.
• Many of the problems didn’t affect voters’ ability to cast ballots, because workers were often able to direct them to other available machines. Of those that did interfere with voting, the most common types of problems were scanning issues and jams.
• Across the three elections, a total of 1,673 voters were delayed or prevented from casting a ballot due to equipment malfunctions, which represents 0.014% of the votes cast in those elections.

Stateline:

The Trump administration’s effort to scoop up voter registration lists and other information from a growing number of states underscores how state-controlled voter lists are a major battleground in fights over access to the polls. The Justice Department told the National Association of Secretaries of State that it will eventually contact all states, an association spokesperson wrote in an email.

Minnesota, New Hampshire and Wisconsin have so far declined to provide full voter registration lists to the department amid questions over the legality of the requests and uncertainty over how the information will be used. Maine Democratic Secretary of State Shenna Bellows plans to deny a similar request, telling the Maine Morning Star that federal officials can “go jump in the Gulf of Maine.”

The Justice Department declined a Stateline request for comment.

Even before states began tangling with the department, how election officials oversee these lists — including when and why voters can be removed — was under increasing scrutiny. The stakes for voters are foundational: How states maintain the lists determines who is on them — and therefore who is able to vote. Power over voter registration lists is the power to shape the electorate.

John Frank in Axios:

“The leading Democrats in the 2026 governor’s race are two of the most vocal critics of dark money in politics.

Yes, but: Both — U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet and Attorney General Phil Weiser — are poised to benefit from dark money donors in the campaign.

Why it matters: The juxtaposition threatens to erode their records on a key issue among Democrats.

State of play: Bennet allies registered the state-level super PAC Rocky Mountain Way days after he entered the race in April and raised $950,000 in its first three months.

The largest contributor is Brighter Future for Colorado, a nonprofit that donated $300,000 and isn’t required to disclose its donors.

Other major donations came from pro-charter school and education organizations that didn’t report the source of the money.

Weiser’s boosters formed their super PAC on July 22, and it’s unclear who is behind the group. Donor information won’t be available until October’s campaign finance filing deadline.”

From Votebeat’s Jen Fifield: 

“Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes is walking back election rules that he said would better protect voters, after Republicans successfully challenged them in court.

In a draft rulebook for the state’s 2026 midterm elections, known as the Election Procedures Manual, released Friday, Fontes deleted examples of what constitutes illegal voter intimidation. He also deleted a paragraph that said the secretary of state could finalize the state’s election results without a particular county’s results, if that county’s officials missed the state deadline to finalize them.

The inclusion of those provisions in the previous edition of the manual, released in 2023 ahead of the 2024 elections, drew Republican lawsuits alleging that Fontes had exceeded his authority, and courts ruled against him.

Fontes, a Democrat, said that he has to follow court orders and that he believes the new version will still protect voters and the integrity of elections.

“We’re trying to walk the line between some of the crazy rulings that we’ve seen coming out of the court that seem to protect the First Amendment rights of people who would scream at voters in line, and those First Amendment rights of voters to peaceably assemble, with this new approach,” Fontes said.”