Gabriel Sterling, a leading defender of Georgia’s voting system who famously called for President Donald Trump to condemn election threats in 2020, entered the Republican race for secretary of state on Thursday.
Sterling, 54, immediately becomes the most well-known candidate in the race to succeed Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, his former boss….
Sterling garnered the national spotlight in December 2020, when he stood at the steps of the Georgia Capitol and told Trump to speak against threats to election workers.
“Someone’s going to get hurt. Someone’s going to get killed. Mr. President, you have not condemned these actions or this language,” Sterling said Dec. 1, 2020. “This has to stop. We need you to step up.”
Five weeks later, on Jan. 6, 2021, a pro-Trump riot at the U.S. Capitol turned deadly.
Sterling, who was chief operating officer for the secretary of state’s office until he resigned this summer, is a lifelong Republican but became the target of conservatives who distrust Georgia’s election equipment….
“In Texas, a Senate Race Turns Brutal Before It’s Even Declared; Attorney General Ken Paxton is waging ‘legal war’ against Beto O’Rourke, a possible Democratic rival, threatening jail and an investigation that could bankrupt his organization.”
For the past month, two Texas political titans — the attorney general Ken Paxton and the former congressman Beto O’Rourke — have been locked in an escalating legal drama, complete with threats of jail time, courtroom showdowns and the possible bankrupting of a Texas voter registration effort.
The clashes have direct implications for the 2026 Senate race, given that Mr. Paxton is already a Republican candidate in the primary against Senator John Cornyn, and Mr. O’Rourke has been openly mulling a run as a Democrat. It has also served as an unusually direct example of how President Trump’s unapologetic use of government powers to pursue partisan ends has spread to political conflicts in the rest of the country.
More tangibly, the attorney general’s attacks threaten the future of Mr. O’Rourke’s political organization, Powered by People, which has spent nearly $400,000, about $100,000 a week, on litigation so far.
“He may very well be able to bankrupt the most successful voter registration program in the state,” Mr. O’Rourke said in a telephone interview. “This is weaponizing the political system to persecute your political enemies.”
It started last month as an offshoot of Mr. Trump’s push to have Republicans redraw congressional lines in Texas. Mr. Paxton directed his office to investigate Mr. O’Rourke’s political organization over its role in raising money for Democratic state lawmakers who had staged a walkout to stymie the redistricting push.
It quickly escalated to Mr. Paxton asking a Texas court to throw Mr. O’Rourke in jail. The legal wrangling has sprawled across the state to courtrooms in El Paso, Fort Worth and Austin.
“No matter how much Beto and Powered by People try and take us down in court, I will continue to wage legal war,” Mr. Paxton said in a news release last month.
Mr. Paxton was not made available for an interview, but his office provided a statement: “Beto’s desperate, unprecedented legal maneuvers will not stand, and there will be accountability for the Beto Buyoff of Texas politicians,” he said….
“House Republicans form new subcommittee to probe Jan. 6”
House Republicans voted on Wednesday to establish a new subcommittee to reinvestigate the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, moving to reopen one of the most polarizing chapters in American politics.
Lawmakers slipped a resolution into a rule on the House floor that would establish the subcommittee, which is likely to be headed by Rep. Barry Loudermilk (R-Georgia). Republicans have complained that the original probe, which was led by Democrats, was biased against President Donald Trump, who has repeatedly denied he lost the 2020 election to Joe Biden.
Loudermilk has already helmed one inquiry into Jan. 6: He used a subcommittee of the House Administration Committee to conduct a follow-up to the Democratic-led investigation after Republicans retook control of the House in 2023.
“We’re going to continue the work that we did last time, which is looking at the evidence to still try to understand: How did the Capitol get breached? There was a huge security failure here,” Loudermilk said.
Democrats said they weren’t aware the resolution had been added to the rule until it was debated in the House Rules Committee on Tuesday night.
Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Maryland), a member of the first committee that investigated the attack on the Capitol, said in a statement: “We welcome yet another chance to remind Americans of House Republicans’ ongoing complicity with — and embarrassing apologetics for — MAGA’s violent insurrection against Congress and Vice-President Mike Pence and Trump’s sinister attempt to overthrow a presidential election.”
The resolution would establish a select subcommittee under the House Judiciary Committee with a total of eight members to be appointed by House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-Louisiana) and not more than three to be appointed “in consultation” with the Democratic minority. Loudermilk said he believed Democrats would not be constrained in their choice of appointees….
“In rare interviews, federal judges criticize Supreme Court’s handling of Trump cases”
Lawrence Hurley for NBC News:
Federal judges are frustrated with the Supreme Court for increasingly overturning lower court rulings involving the Trump administration with little or no explanation, with some worried the practice is undermining the judiciary at a sensitive time.
Some judges believe the Supreme Court, and in particular Chief Justice John Roberts, could be doing more to defend the integrity of their work as President Donald Trump and his allies harshly criticize those who rule against him and as violent threats against judges are on the rise.
In rare interviews with NBC News, a dozen federal judges — appointed by Democratic and Republican presidents, including Trump, and serving around the country — pointed to a pattern they say has recently emerged:
Lower court judges are handed contentious cases involving the Trump administration. They painstakingly research the law to reach their rulings. When they go against Trump, administration officials and allies criticize the judges in harsh terms. The government appeals to the Supreme Court, with its 6-3 conservative majority.
And then the Supreme Court, in emergency rulings, swiftly rejects the judges’ decisions with little to no explanation.
Emergency rulings used to be rare. But their number has dramatically increased in recent years.
Ten of the 12 judges who spoke to NBC News said the Supreme Court should better explain those rulings, noting that the terse decisions leave lower court judges with little guidance for how to proceed. But they also have a new and concerning effect, the judges said, validating the Trump administration’s criticisms. A short rebuttal from the Supreme Court, they argue, makes it seem like they did shoddy work and are biased against Trump.
“It is inexcusable,” a judge said of the Supreme Court justices. “They don’t have our backs.”
All 12 judges spoke on condition that they not be identifiable, some because it is considered unwise to publicly criticize the justices who ultimately decide whether to uphold their rulings and others because of the risk of threats.
Judges are increasingly targeted, with some facing bomb threats, “swattings” and other harassment. Judges especially involved in high-profile cases — and their families — have reported receiving violent threats…..
e Supreme Court has an obligation to explain rulings in a way the public can understand, a third judge said, adding that when the court so frequently rules for the administration in emergency cases without fully telling people why, it sends a signal. The court has had strong left-leaning majorities in the past, but what is different now is the role emergency cases are playing in public discourse.
The Supreme Court, that judge said, is effectively endorsing Miller’s claims that the judiciary is trying to subvert the presidency.
“It’s almost like the Supreme Court is saying it is a ‘judicial coup,’” the judge said.
Not all judges who were interviewed shared that view. Some were more reluctant to criticize the justices.
A judge appointed by President Barack Obama said that while the Supreme Court could do more to explain itself, some lower court judges had been out of line in blocking Trump policies.
“Certainly, there is a strong sense in the judiciary among the judges ruling on these cases that the court is leaving them out to dry,” he said. “They are partially right to feel the way they feel.”
But, the judge added, “the whole ‘Trump derangement syndrome’ is a real issue. As a result, judges are mad at what Trump is doing or the manner he is going about things; they are sometimes forgetting to stay in their lane.”….
Very Sad News: Ed Still Has Passed Away
Ed was a great lawyer and a kind and gentle man. From the LDF announcement:
The Legal Defense Fund (LDF) mourns the loss of Edward Still, an attorney whose legal advocacy in voting rights and redistricting transformed democracy in Alabama and across the nation. Over the course of his illustrious five-decade career, Mr. Still led powerful voting rights litigation and advocacy, representing Black voters and other voters of color in more than 200 cases under the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Mr. Still passed away at 79 years old on September 1, 2025.
“We are profoundly saddened by the loss of attorney Edward Still, a legendary voting rights advocate and close legal partner of LDF,” said Todd A. Cox, LDF Associate Director-Counsel. “Mr. Still’s tireless commitment to protecting the rights of Black communities in Alabama helped build political power and strengthen our nation’s democracy. With a sharp legal mind and an extraordinary spirit, Mr. Still advanced the fulfillment of America’s most foundational values of equality and justice for all. We extend our deepest condolences to Mr. Still’s family and loved ones. His legacy will endure through the continued fight for a fair and inclusive democracy.”
Mr. Still began his legal career in Tuscaloosa in 1971, later practicing in Birmingham for more than two decades before serving as Director of the Voting Rights Project of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law in Washington, D.C., from 1997 to 2001. He subsequently worked as Special Counsel at Dickstein Shapiro Morin & Oshinsky LLP before returning to Birmingham, where he continued his work on behalf of communities across Alabama and beyond.
For more than fifty years, Mr. Still led groundbreaking litigation to solidify the promise of full democratic participation for Alabama communities. Mr. Still was part of the legal team in City of Mobile v. Bolden, the Supreme Court case that led to Congress amending the Voting Rights Act to strengthen its protections against racial discrimination in voting in 1982. He then helped litigate Dillard v. Crenshaw, the landmark case that transformed local elections throughout Alabama to allow Black representation in local government. Mr. Still maintained a close relationship with LDF for many years through voting rights and redistricting litigation, including serving as co-counsel on a number of cases including Dillard v. Crenshaw, Mobile v. Bolden, Escambia County v. McMillan, Shelby v. Holder, Pensacola v. Jenkins, Hayden v. Pataki, Bozeman v. Lambert, Reno v. Bossier Parish School Board, and Cromartie v. Hunt.
Mr. Still also advised Alabama cities on redistricting, served as general counsel to the Alabama Democratic Party, and played a key role in major election contests, including representing former Alabama Attorney General Bill Baxley. His expertise and dedication made him one of the nation’s leading voices in redistricting and voting rights law.
Amicus Brief on the Fifteenth Amendment in Louisiana v. Callais
Another ELB contributor has entered the Callais fray. Today, I filed an amicus brief in support of the Robinson appellants in this fall’s blockbuster voting rights case, Louisiana v. Callais. You can find my amicus brief here. Thanks to Rakesh Kilaru, Dan Epps, Allison Walter, and the paralegal team at Wilkinson Stekloff LLP for help with the brief.
Drawing on my scholarship about the Fifteenth Amendment, the amicus brief makes three arguments. First, as originally understood, the Equal Protection Clause did not apply to voting rights. Rather, it was the Fifteenth Amendment that enfranchised Black men nationwide and granted Congress robust enforcement authority. Thus, the Fifteenth—not the Fourteenth—Amendment is the constitutional touchstone for the fight against racial discrimination in voting.
Second, when viewed through the lens of the Fifteenth Amendment, Shaw should be overturned. I suspect that this claim will spark some controversy in the field and among voting rights lawyers. Although Shaw was briefly used to advance minority voting rights in the 2010s, it is not worth the candle. Callais demonstrates that Shaw’s colorblind approach to redistricting threatens Section 2’s constitutionality. Moreover, Shaw is indefensible as written from an originalist perspective, something that Justice Thomas recognized last year in his Alexander concurrence but the other originalist Justices have not yet grappled with. For starters, the Shaw Court reached for the wrong constitutional provision. It applied equal protection principles to what should be a Fifteenth Amendment case. More fundamentally, the Reconstruction Framers’ views on racially polarized voting would have been labelled by the Shaw Court as impermissible racial stereotypes.Stated bluntly, the Shaw Court’s approach reflects modern, normative views on racial politics, not the views of the Reconstruction generation. The other stare decisis factors also militate in favor of overruling: Shaw and its predominant factor standard are unworkable, inconsistent with precedent, and have been undermined by recent factual and legal developments.
Third, Section 2 is a constitutional exercise of Congress’s Fifteenth Amendment enforcement authority. Because that power is governed by Katzenbach’s deferential standard, the Court need not answer the antecedent question of whether racial vote dilution is prohibited by Section One of the Fifteenth Amendment. Rather, the question is whether Congress could have reasonably concluded that racial vote dilution is a denial or abridgment of the right to vote free of racial discrimination. It assuredly is.
One last aside. We should probably start calling this case Robinson v. Callais after Louisiana flipped sides and attacked Section 2’s constitutionality. It’s not terribly surprising that Louisiana did so, but the Louisiana v. Callais captioning gives a false impression of what the case is now about.
Ugh: “Trump’s DOJ seeks voting equipment in Missouri ahead of 2026 election”
WaPo:
A top official in President Donald Trump’s Justice Department recently sought access to voting equipment used by two Republican clerks in Missouri during the 2020 election, an unusual request from federal officials amid continued efforts by the president to… Continue reading
“Money, Politics, and the First Amendment”
This looks to be a great hybrid event at the University of Wisconsin’s State Democracy Research Initiative on October 3.
“Richard Bernstein: The Trump Administration’s Arguments About the National Guard Threaten the 2026 Elections”
Must-read:
Yesterday, federal District Judge Charles Breyer ruled that the Trump Administration’s federalization of the National Guard in Los Angeles to assist in immigration law enforcement violated the Posse Comitatus Act, which is 18 U.S.C. section 1385. The Posse Comitatus… Continue reading
“Utah’s congressional maps must be redrawn right away, judge rule”
AP:
A judge has ruled that Utah lawmakers must proceed with redrawing the state’s congressional district map right away, pointing to Texas and California in rejecting their argument that the job can’t be done in time for the 2026… Continue reading
Quote of the Day
I was reading Nick Stephanopoulos’ amicus brief in the LA v. Callais case and was struck by this statement in his summary of argument:
“Based on these [the 2020 and 2024] elections’ results, Black vote-dilution plaintiffs would be unable to… Continue reading
Plaintiffs File Cert Petition in Turtle Mountain Band Case on Whether Private Plaintiffs Have the Right to Sue to Enforce Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (More than 90% of Suits Have Been Brought This Way Since 1982)
This cert petition follows from the Supreme Court’s order putting the Eighth Circuit ruling on hold pending resolution of this cert petition. See also my earlier Slate coverage of the stakes.
Callais Amicus Brief on the Inherent Limits to Section 2
I filed this amicus brief today in Callais in conjunction with lawyers from Mehri & Skalet. The brief makes three main arguments: (1) Section 2 is unlike the policies on which the Court has previously imposed temporal limits (Section 4’s… Continue reading
Georgia: “Republican lawmakers push for hand-marked ballots in November election”
AJC:
Key Georgia lawmakers Tuesday called for a rapid test-run of hand-marked paper ballots in this year’s elections, switching from touchscreens in some polling places.
The rush to try paper ballots filled out by hand follows mounting pressure from President … Continue reading