2026

By John Kruzel

WASHINGTON, May 15 (Reuters) – The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday rejected a bid by Virginia Democrats to revive a voting map designed to help their party wrest control of the U.S. House of Representatives from President Donald Trump’s fellow Republicans in November’s midterm elections.

The justices declined to halt a ruling by Virginia’s top court that blocked a voter-approved pro-Democratic map for the midterms, denying a request by Democrats in the state. The court’s action came in a brief and unsigned order that provided no rationale. No justice publicly dissented.

Democrats pursued the revised electoral map – crafted to flip four Republican-held U.S. House of Representatives seats to Democrats – as part of a nationwide political battle initiated last year by Trump to redraw the boundaries of U.S. electoral districts for partisan benefit.

The conservative-majority U.S. Supreme Court acted in the Virginia case after clearing the way on Monday for Alabama Republicans to pursue a congressional voting map more favorable to their party ahead of the midterms.

Control of Congress is at stake in the midterms, with Republicans holding slim majorities in the House and Senate. Virginia has 11 seats in the 435-member House.

The Virginia Supreme Court in a 4-3 decision on May 8 threw out the state’s voter-approved map, ruling in favor of Republicans who challenged it. The court found that Democratic lawmakers had not followed proper procedures last year when they rushed to approve the referendum in the state legislature in time to put the ballot initiative before voters ahead of the midterms.

Don Scott, the speaker of the Virginia House of Delegates, and other Democratic legislators asked the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday to halt the ruling by the state’s top court, saying it had “deprived voters, candidates and the Commonwealth (Virginia) of their right to the lawfully enacted congressional districts.”

They cited a 2023 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that stated that state courts “may not transgress the ordinary bounds of judicial review such that they arrogate to themselves the power vested in state legislatures to regulate federal elections.”

The Virginia referendum was the final step in a complicated legislative maneuver to sidestep a state constitutional amendment that was passed by voters in 2020 to put redistricting in the hands of a bipartisan commission.

Virginia Senate Republican Leader Ryan McDougle, one of the plaintiffs in the case, welcomed the court’s ruling on Friday.

“The Supreme Court of the United States has affirmed what we always knew: you cannot violate the Constitution to change the Constitution,” McDougle said.

Virginia voters approved the Democratic-backed electoral map in an April 21 special election by a 51.7% to 48.3% margin, with about 3.1 million votes cast. 

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 U.S. census every 10 years. Redistricting traditionally has been carried out by state legislatures at the start of each new decade. 

In the unusual mid-decade redistricting fight now unfolding, Republicans hold a clear advantage. 

At Trump’s urging, Republican-governed Texas redrew its electoral map last year in a bid to flip five Democratic-held U.S. House seats, prompting Democratic-led California to reconfigure its congressional map to target five Republican-held seats. Multiple other states have joined the fray.

Democrats suffered a blow when the U.S. Supreme Court’s 6-3 conservative majority in April gutted a key provision of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, opening the door for Republican-led Southern states to dismantle Democratic-held majority-Black and majority-Latino districts ahead of the November elections. Black and Latino voters tend to support Democratic candidates.

Underscoring the stakes of the Virginia redistricting effort, Democratic- and Republican-affiliated groups spent close to $100 million on the referendum campaign.

The ​referendum has faced multiple legal challenges. In addition to the dispute before the U.S. Supreme Court, a judge in a separate case on April 22 also blocked the pro-Democratic map, acting in a lawsuit filed by the Republican National Committee.

(Reporting by John Kruzel; Editing by Will Dunham)

source

By Richard Cowan

WASHINGTON, May 16 (Reuters) – Democrats hoping to win control of Congress in November’s elections are seizing on Republicans’ support of President Donald Trump’s proposed $400 million White House ballroom to portray his party as out of touch with voters’ cost-of-living concerns.

As Republicans move toward a vote that might include hundreds of millions of dollars for the ballroom, Democrats are pointing to a more than 50% jump in gasoline prices since Trump launched a war with Iran, as well as rising healthcare, fertilizer and electricity costs they say his policies have worsened. 

“It’s a perfect storm of ugly,” Democratic Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota told reporters, quoting a farmer in her state.

Outside of Washington, Democratic candidates are portraying the project as a frivolous diversion from working Americans’ concerns.

The ballroom “is a vanity project that we don’t need,” Brian Poindexter, a Democrat running for a House of Representatives seat in northeastern Ohio, said in an interview. “Most of the people I hope to serve … worry about food, utilities, paying the rent.”

His rival, incumbent Republican Representative Max Miller, did not respond to a request for comment.

Some Republicans say the ballroom is a needed improvement for an outdated White House and has nothing to do with the broader economy.

“It’s hard to make that connection there. It doesn’t fit,” said Republican Representative Daniel Webster of Florida.

Others say it’s a bad look ahead of the November elections, when control of the House of Representatives and the Senate is at stake. 

“We’re talking about building a ballroom, and we’re trying to get the economy squared away. Timing is bad,” Republican Senator Thom Tillis of North Carolina told CNN.

Republicans are highlighting tax cuts they passed last year as they make the case they have tackled affordability concerns. But Trump himself has not always stuck to that message. 

“I don’t think about Americans’ financial situation. I don’t think about ​anybody,” he told reporters on Tuesday when asked about rising costs spurred by the Iran war. He said his main concern was preventing Tehran from developing a nuclear weapon.

White House spokesman Davis Ingle said the administration was working to make healthcare and other costs more affordable.

The funding in question is part of a package that would enable the Secret Service “to properly address the ever growing threats of political violence in this historically heightened threat environment,” Ingle said.   

WASHINGTON MAKEOVER

Trump, a former real estate developer, has already demolished the East Wing of the White House as he forges ahead with the 90,000-square-foot ballroom. It would be capable of hosting large state events that are now held in tents on the South Lawn. It would sit atop a fortified underground military complex.

The scale of the project and the administration’s handling of fundraising ⁠have drawn criticism from watchdog groups who say it raises questions about transparency, donor influence and adherence to longstanding ​ethics norms.

Trump has said roughly $300 million has been raised for the project, though he has not provided details on the source of that money.

The ballroom is one of several efforts Trump has undertaken to overhaul Washington landmarks, including the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool and a proposed triumphal arch near Arlington Cemetery.

Trump has insisted the ballroom would not cost taxpayers one cent because of private donations and money out of his own pocket.

But after a gunman tried to storm a black-tie gala featuring Trump in April at a Washington hotel, Republican Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina called for Congress to approve $323 million in taxpayer money for the ballroom, citing security concerns.

Republicans are now advancing legislation that would include $1 billion for presidential security, including roughly $400 million for the White House complex. A vote in the Senate is possible next week.

“We want to protect our presidents no matter who they are, what party they’re in,” said Republican Representative Glenn Thompson of Pennsylvania. “I think that this construction project does that.”

Details of the legislation have not yet been publicly released, and it is not clear whether it would fund ballroom construction directly. 

Senate Majority Leader John Thune said the $1 billion is needed to bolster the Secret Service and harden the White House complex. “The ballroom is being financed privately,” he said.

Democrats say the legislation contains no such guardrails. “If it’s not for the ballroom, they should write that right into the bill,” Democratic Senator Jeff Merkley of Oregon told Reuters.

While there is no presidential election until 2028, Trump looms large over November’s midterm elections. Polling shows voters disapprove of his handling of the economy, his immigration crackdown, the Iran war — and the ballroom.

A Washington Post-ABC News poll released this month found Americans opposed the ballroom project by 56% to 28%. 

In such an environment, it may be difficult for the security funding to pass the Senate, where Republicans hold a 53-47 majority, and the House, where their 217-212 majority gives them few votes to spare. 

“I have heard from residents all over the district, they don’t want their hard-earned tax dollars going to Donald Trump’s ballroom,” said Bob Harvie, a Democratic candidate running for a Pennsylvania House seat, noting incumbent Republican Representative Brian Fitzpatrick had cast votes supporting the Iran war and Trump’s tariffs. 

Fitzpatrick spokesperson Casey-Lee Waldron said: “Congressman Fitzpatrick is opposed to taxpayer money being used to pay for the ballroom, and he will be voting accordingly.”

(Reporting by Richard Cowan, additional reporting by Steve Holland; editing by Andy Sullivan and Cynthia Osterman)

source