Politics

WASHINGTON (AP) — Louisiana Republicans will nominate a candidate for U.S. Senate in a primary runoff Saturday, six weeks after denying Republican U.S. Sen. Bill Cassidy a shot at a third term.

Although President Donald Trump already achieved one of his top political goals with Cassidy’s defeat, Saturday’s runoff could further demonstrate his ongoing influence in Republican primaries as he tries to populate the halls of Congress with loyalists for his final two years in office. The seat is not a top target among Democrats looking to win back control of the chamber in November.

Republican U.S. Rep. Julia Letlow and state Treasurer John Fleming are the finalists for Cassidy’s now-open U.S. Senate seat. Trump encouraged Letlow to challenge Cassidy in the primary and endorsed her before she entered the race in January. Letlow took office in 2021 in a special election to replace her husband, Luke Letlow, who died from COVID-19 in 2020 before taking office. Fleming served in Congress for eight years leading up to Trump’s first term. He ran for U.S. Senate in 2016 but failed to make the runoff. Republican John Kennedy won the seat.

In the May 16 primary, Letlow placed first with about 45% of the vote, short of the majority required to avoid Saturday’s runoff. Fleming placed second with 28% of the vote, just ahead of Cassidy with about 25%.

Letlow led in small, mostly rural parishes across the state, with outright majorities in parishes in northeastern Louisiana and along the Mississippi border. Fleming mostly placed a distant second across the state. He performed best in northwestern Louisiana, with leads in nine rural parishes, but not in Caddo, home to Shreveport, where he finished a close second behind Letlow.

Cassidy was the top vote-getter in the state’s three most populous parishes, including Orleans Parish where he led Letlow by almost a three-to-one margin. But he barely outperformed Letlow in East Baton Rouge and Jefferson parishes.

The president’s endorsees have generally had a strong winning record at the ballot box, but his recent picks for governor of Iowa and Georgia lost their primaries. Trump endorsed South Carolina Lt. Gov. Pamela Evette for governor ahead of the primary, but after she was forced to a runoff in a close vote, he announced he was backing both her and her opponent, state Attorney General Alan Wilson, who won the nomination on Tuesday.

Trump has reissued his endorsement of Letlow several times since January, including most recently in mid-June. He has not also endorsed Fleming.

Louisiana Democrats will also finalize their U.S. Senate nominee, with farmer Jamie Davis and Navy veteran Gary Crockett competing in the runoff.

Other primary runoffs on the ballot include Republican contests for Public Service Commission and state board of education, where incumbent board member and former Republican U.S. Rep. Joseph Cao faces a challenge from educator and business owner Ellie Schroder.

Primaries for U.S. House were were postponed to November after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the state’s current congressional map, which includes a majority Black district that favors Democrats. Although the state had previously adopted a new primary system for congressional races, the postponed U.S. House races will revert to using an “open” or “ jungle ” primary system where candidates run on the same ballot regardless of party.

Here are some of the key facts about the election and data points the AP Decision Team will monitor as the votes are tallied:

Polls close at 8 p.m. CT, which is 9 p.m. ET.

The Associated Press will provide vote results and declare winners in primary runoffs for U.S. Senate, state Public Service Commission and state school board.

Registered party members may vote only in their own party’s primary runoffs. In other words, Democrats can’t vote in a Republican runoff or vice versa. Independent or unaffiliated voters who voted in a party’s primary on May 16 may only vote in that same party’s runoff. Independent or unaffiliated voters who did not vote in a partisan primary on May 16 may vote in either party’s runoff.

As of June 1, there were about 3 million registered voters in Louisiana. Registered Democrats and Republicans numbered about 1.1 million each, with registered Democrats at a slight advantage. About 819,000 voters were not registered with any party. The remainder were registered with other parties.

About 832,000 Louisianans participated in the May 16 primary, or about 28% of registered voters. This includes about 347,000 registered Democrats and about 336,000 registered Republicans.

In 2022 when the state still used “open” or “jungle” primary rules for certain contests, turnout fell from 1.4 million in the November primary to about 439,000 in the December runoff, or about 47% of registered voters to about 14%.

About 33% of Democratic primary votes and about 31% of Republican primary votes in the May 16 primaries were cast early in-person or by mail.

As of Thursday, about 82,000 ballots from Republicans and about 61,000 ballots from Democrats had already been cast in Saturday’s runoffs.

Results from early and absentee voting are usually released by each parish in the first vote update.

In the May 16 primary, the AP first reported results at 9:02 p.m. ET, or two minutes after polls closed. By 10:46 p.m. ET, more than 90% of the total vote had been counted. The last vote update of the night was at 1:30 a.m. ET with about 99.9% of total votes counted.

The AP does not make projections and will declare a winner only when it’s determined there is no scenario that would allow a trailing candidate to close the gap. If a race has not been called, the AP will continue to cover any newsworthy developments, such as candidate concessions or declarations of victory. In doing so, the AP will make clear that it has not yet declared a winner and explain why.

There are no automatic recounts in Louisiana, but a candidate may request and pay for a recount of absentee and early votes. The AP may declare a winner in a race that is subject to a recount if it can determine the lead is too large for a recount or legal challenge to change the outcome.

As of Saturday, there will be 129 days until the Nov. 3 general election and the Louisiana congressional primaries, and 168 days until the Louisiana congressional general election on Dec. 12.

___

Follow the AP’s coverage of the 2026 election at https://apnews.com/projects/elections-2026/.

source

By Nate Raymond

June 26 (Reuters) – U.S. President Donald Trump’s administration has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to let it detain people arrested in its immigration crackdown without a chance to seek bond, even if they have lived in the country for years.

The administration made that request in a filing made public on Friday, asking the Supreme Court to overturn a May decision by a federal appeals court, which had rejected its reinterpretation of a decades-old immigration ​law that now underlies its mass detention policy.

The administration filed the appeal earlier this week, before the 6-3 conservative majority court handed it a pair of major wins on immigration policy on Thursday, including by allowing it to strip hundreds of thousands of Haitian and Syrian immigrants of protections against deportation.

The administration is asking the Supreme Court to review a ruling by a 2-1 panel of the Cincinnati-based 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, one of three appeals courts that have joined with hundreds of lower-court judges in rejecting its detention practice.

Two other appeals courts have endorsed the administration’s policy, a fact U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer noted as he urged the justices to intervene and resolve a “critically important question of immigration law” that is fueling thousands of lawsuits by people challenging their detention.

“Detaining aliens who are living in the country after an illegal entry while their removal proceedings unfold prevents those aliens from evading hearings and helps ensure their removal from the United States,” Sauer argued in a petition.

Bucking a long-standing interpretation of immigration law, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security last year took the position that non-citizens already residing in the United ​States, and not just people ​arriving at the border, ⁠qualify as “applicants for admission” subject to mandatory detention.

Under federal immigration law, “applicants for admission” to the United States are subject to mandatory detention while their cases proceed ​in immigration courts and are ineligible for bond hearings.

The Board of Immigration ​Appeals, which is ⁠part of the Justice Department, issued a decision in September that adopted that interpretation. As a result, immigration judges, who are employed by the department, across the country began ordering mandatory detention. 

The 6th Circuit’s ruling came in cases out of Michigan involving citizens of Mexico, El Salvador, Venezuela, Nicaragua and Guatemala who had resided in the United States for years before being arrested by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement or U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

It held that the administration misinterpreted a provision of the ⁠Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 and that the migrants were denied bond hearings in violation of their due process rights under the U.S. Constitution’s Fifth Amendment.

(Reporting by Nate Raymond in Boston, Editing by Alexia Garamfalvi and Sanjeev Miglani)

source

By Steve Holland

WASHINGTON, June 26 (Reuters) – U.S. President Donald Trump warned on Friday that a string of left-wing Democratic primary victories in New York City posed “the most serious threat to our country since its existence,” previewing what is likely to be a key Republican line of attack ahead of November’s midterm elections.

Trump, addressing the evangelical Faith and Freedom Coalition’s annual “Road to Majority” event in Washington, inaccurately described the winning candidates – including two members of the Democratic Socialists of America – as communists.

“These ruthless communists will attack all religions, but in particular Christianity,” Trump said. “This is the greatest threat to our country since its founding.”

He also said communists were “animals” willing to assassinate their opponents, offering no evidence to support that assertion. The remark was particularly stark given that Trump was speaking at the same hotel where an armed attacker tried to get past Secret Service agents while the president was attending the White House Correspondents’ Association dinner in April.

Republicans, struggling to convince Americans they have a plan to address the high cost of living, are widely expected to go on the attack against Democrats in the closing months of the campaign as they fight to retain their slim control of Congress.

Political analysts say the success of left-wing Democratic candidates in the primaries gives Republicans an opportunity to paint the party as drifting too far to the left and focused on ideological priorities rather than voters’ cost-of-living concerns.

Tuesday’s primary contests saw a trio of far-left U.S. House of Representatives candidates backed by New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani defeat two incumbent Democrats and a third candidate favored by the party establishment.

Democratic socialists generally believe that the government should provide a robust welfare state, favoring policies such as universal healthcare and child care, free college education, stronger labor protections and higher taxes on the wealthy. Unlike communists, democratic socialists believe in working within the democratic system to effect change.

Democratic socialist candidates have also put support for Palestinians and opposition to U.S. military aid for Israel at the heart of their campaigns.

In response to Trump’s comments, a spokesman for the Democratic Party’s House campaign arm, Aidan Johnson, said Republicans “know they can’t win on the issues, so we’re seeing them melt down in real time, resorting to ineffective boogeyman attacks.”

INTENSE SECURITY

Trump has supported many of the Faith and Freedom Coalition’s causes, including attempting to ban transgender athletes from women’s sports. But he has also drawn criticism from Christian supporters of Israel over his ceasefire deal with Iran and from anti-abortion opponents who feel the administration has been too permissive. 

On Friday, he sought to portray the war in Iran as an unqualified success, claiming he had thwarted Tehran’s ability to build a nuclear weapon.

His appearance at the Washington Hilton came two months after a man with a shotgun attempted to reach the ballroom where he had been set to speak to a gathering of White House journalists and other guests.

Outside the ballroom on Friday, increased security was apparent with more doors blocked off and more guards on duty.

Authorities identified the gunman as Cole Tomas Allen, a 31-year-old California resident who pleaded not guilty to charges that he tried to assassinate Trump.

(Reporting by Steve Holland; Additional reporting by Tim Reid; Writing by Joseph Ax; Editing by Trevor Hunnicutt, Sanjeev Miglani, Ross Colvin and Alistair Bell)

source

By Nolan D. McCaskill

WASHINGTON, June 26 (Reuters) – A congressional panel subpoenaed billionaire investor Leon Black on Friday seeking information about non-disclosure agreements with victims of the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein and compelling his appearance for a deposition.

Black appeared on Friday for a voluntary private interview with the panel, which is investigating the federal government’s Epstein probe. He said he had no involvement or knowledge of what he referred to as Epstein’s “heinous conduct.”

Republican Representative James Comer of Kentucky, chair of the House of Representatives’ Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said the subpoenas were “a result of refusing to answer specific questions about NDAs and the terms.”

“We believe that information is vital to our investigation,” he said.

Susan Estrich, Black’s attorney, said the subpoenas were served before the committee had asked her client any questions about his payments to Epstein.

“This was nothing more than a planned political stunt,” she said of the subpoenas. “Mr. Epstein had no involvement with any NDAs, whether they exist or not.”

In his opening statement to the committee, Black said he never abused women or engaged in sex trafficking and had never been with underage women.

“I have never paid Epstein for access to women,” he said. “I was never blackmailed by Epstein.”

PANEL SUBPOENAS BLACK TO TESTIFY UNDER OATH

Black is the latest individual connected to Epstein to appear before the panel, which ordered him to come back on July 16 to testify under oath.

Epstein, a prominent financier who socialized with many political and business leaders, pleaded guilty in 2008 to state prostitution charges and served 13 months in jail. 

He was arrested again in 2019 on federal charges of sex trafficking of minors. His 2019 death in a Manhattan jail cell was ruled a suicide.

Black stepped down as the head of private equity firm Apollo Global Management in 2021 after a review by an outside law firm found he had paid Epstein $158 million for tax and estate planning. He also paid $62.5 million to the U.S. Virgin Islands in 2023 to avoid any legal claims tied to an Epstein-related investigation.

Black has faced several lawsuits from women alleging sexual abuse. Two were dismissed and a third is ongoing. Black has denied all allegations and has not been criminally charged.

Ahead of the interview, Comer said the panel had hundreds of questions for Black about financial transactions and communication with survivors.

“Of all the witnesses that have come thus far, this one has the potential to be the most groundbreaking,” he told reporters.

Black told the committee he would voluntarily answer questions about his payments to Epstein and the work he provided but would not discuss his personal life.

Committee members said Black refused to answer questions about victims of Epstein’s abuse and NDAs, and that he walked out during the middle of the interview.

Representative Robert Garcia, the top Democrat on the committee, said it was important that the panel gain access to the non-disclosure agreements and interview Black under oath.

“When we started asking questions about the women, the survivors, NDAs that Mr. Black clearly has facilitated, he wouldn’t answer those questions,” Garcia told reporters after the interview. “Without answers there, we’re not going to have justice for the survivors and [be] able to move our investigation forward.”

Black testified that he had known Epstein for 18 years before giving him a dime. He said Epstein helped him to solve a “massive estate problem.”

Black said he was aware of Epstein’s 2008 guilty plea but was told “it was an isolated incident resulting from a fake ID.” He said he regretted giving Epstein a second chance in 2013 and severed ties in 2018 “after more than a year of increasing turmoil in our professional arrangements.”

(Reporting by Nolan D. McCaskill; Editing by Andy Sullivan and Edmund Klamann)

source

By Dan Rosenzweig-Ziff

GREENBELT, Maryland, June 26 (Reuters) – John Bolton, a former national security adviser for U.S. President Donald Trump who has since become one of his fiercest critics, pleaded guilty in federal court on Friday to mishandling classified information and faces up to five years in prison.

“I’m sorry for it,” Bolton told U.S. District Judge Theodore D. Chuang during the hearing. 

Reuters previously reported that Bolton would plead guilty under a deal with prosecutors that included a sentencing range from no prison time to as many as five years behind bars, with the final sentence to be determined by a judge.

As part of the agreement, Bolton agreed to pay a $2.25 million fine. Bolton, 77, must make half that payment within five days of sentencing and the full payment within 90 days of sentencing.

He also committed to up to 100 hours of community service and to meet with intelligence and Justice Department officials for a debriefing. Bolton will also forfeit his government pension.

Chuang scheduled sentencing for October 28. 

The White House referred a request for comment to the Justice Department. 

Bolton is accused of sharing sensitive information with two relatives for possible use in a memoir he was writing, including notes on intelligence briefings and meetings with senior government officials and foreign leaders. Prosecutors said he shared more than 1,000 pages in the form of diary entries. He pleaded not guilty to 18 criminal charges last year.

The book detailed Bolton’s tenure as Trump’s national security adviser during his first term. In the book, Bolton described the president as unfit for office, sparking a public feud. But prosecutors said on Friday that no classified information was published in Bolton’s book, “The Room Where It Happened.”

Authorities said Bolton’s personal email was hacked by someone believed to be linked to Iran, which prosecutors reiterated on Friday.

Kelly O. Hayes, the U.S. attorney for the district of Maryland, told reporters after the hearing that that was exactly why it was dangerous to share classified information on personal accounts. 

“He put our national security at grave risk,” she said of Bolton. 

Abbe D. Lowell, Bolton’s lawyer, said in a statement after the hearing that his client was a “real leader” for taking responsibility for his actions, which Lowell called a mistake. 

“By contrast, President Trump thumbed his nose at the classified information laws, took actual classified documents to his Florida mansion, interfered with the investigation of that conduct, and has never accepted any accountability for his conduct,” he said, referring to a case in which Trump was indicted for mishandling classified documents. “Ambassador Bolton, whose offense was only keeping a diary which contained classified information, kept a record to preserve history, but Donald Trump kept secrets to serve himself.”

Bolton, who served as national security adviser during Trump’s first term in office, is one of several notable political opponents who have faced prosecution from Trump’s Justice Department, erasing longstanding norms that had separated law enforcement efforts from partisan considerations.

But unlike other cases brought against Trump critics, the Bolton investigation began before Trump returned to office in 2025 and had the backing of career federal prosecutors.

(Reporting by Dan Rosenzweig-Ziff and Joseph Ax; Editing by Chizu Nomiyama and Andrea Ricci)

source

By Andrew Chung

WASHINGTON, June 26 (Reuters) – Since Donald Trump returned to the presidency last year promising to aggressively crack down on immigration and pursue a campaign of mass deportation, the conservative-majority U.S. Supreme Court has, for the most part, smoothed the way. 

In case after case, the court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, has green-lighted the Republican president’s policies targeting both legal and illegal immigration with few exceptions, while its three liberal justices have objected to most of his actions. 

The latest examples came this week, when the court gave Trump and his administration three victories — all in cases decided along ideological lines — that make it easier to deport people, or refuse them entry, including those who have legal status in the United States. 

‘A RUBBER STAMP’

“The Trump administration has turned the immigration system into a deportation machine,” said Elora Mukherjee, director of the Immigrants’ Rights Clinic at Columbia Law School in New York.

“In most cases, the Supreme Court has been a rubber stamp for Trump’s mass deportation agenda,” Mukherjee added. 

The court in a 6-3 decision on Thursday let the administration strip hundreds of thousands of Haitian and Syrian immigrants of their Temporary Protected Status. This humanitarian designation under U.S. law lets migrants from nations stricken by war or catastrophe live and work in the United States while it is unsafe for them to return to their home countries. 

Legal experts said the practical effect is grim for immigrants now losing their status as they face a choice of staying and risking detention, or returning to countries that the U.S. State Department warns against any travel to due to widespread violence, crime, terrorism and kidnapping. 

“These are not conditions to which people should be returned,” Tirana Hassan, CEO of the group Doctors Without Borders USA, said on Thursday, referring to Haiti. 

Ahilan Arulanantham, an immigration law expert at UCLA and lawyer for the Syrian plaintiffs in the TPS dispute, said, “The Supreme Court has consistently ruled against the rights of immigrant communities in important cases in the last several years, and this case fits that pattern.” 

“The decision hands to the administration, and to the far right wing of the anti-immigrant movement, an important victory that they have been unable to obtain through Congress for a number of years,” Arulanantham added.

The court also on Thursday ruled 6-3 to back the government’s authority to turn away asylum seekers when officials deem U.S.-Mexico border crossings overburdened, by physically blocking them from entering the United States. Trump’s administration has said it may seek to revive the policy, known as “metering,” after it ‌was dropped by his Democratic predecessor Joe Biden.

On Tuesday, again in a 6-3 split, the court made it easier to remove lawful permanent residents — also known as green-card holders — ruling that border agents do not need to meet the high standard of “clear and convincing evidence” that such an individual has committed a crime before refusing to allow them back into the country after a trip abroad.

‘THE RULE OF LAW’

“These three rulings are all victories for the rule of law and common sense,” said Department of Homeland Security General Counsel James Percival, adding that Temporary Protected Status “was always supposed to be temporary.” 

“Thanks to these decisions, we now have several more important tools to continue securing our borders,” Percival added. 

Since Trump returned to office in January 2025, the court has largely acceded to his demands to implement policies bolstering his drive to step up deportations when they have been impeded by lower courts, while legal challenges to them play out. 

These decisions have been issued on an emergency basis on the Supreme Court’s so-called shadow docket in which the justices can make highly consequential decisions outside their regular process, without extensive briefing or oral arguments. 

For instance, the court has let Trump deport migrants to countries where they have no ties, carry out aggressive immigration raids that can target individuals based on their race or language, and to end humanitarian protections including TPS and another form of protection called parole for hundreds of thousands of immigrants. 

Ashley Sanchez, director of the Immigration Clinic at the University of Notre Dame’s law school, said that while immigration laws have not substantially changed, Trump’s administration is choosing to apply them in a way to limit both legal and illegal immigration as much as possible. 

The court has had its current ideological makeup since October 2020, when Trump appointed conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett to succeed the late liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

The existence of this conservative supermajority has been pivotal in immigration rulings, Sanchez said.

“This more conservative group appears much more willing to side with the president,” Sanchez added.

Sanchez pointed to the court’s June 2020 decision, during Trump’s first term as president, to block his bid to end a program that protects from deportation hundreds of thousands of migrants — often called “Dreamers” — who entered the United States illegally as children.

The court had a 5-4 conservative majority at the time, but conservative Chief Justice John Roberts joined with the court’s liberal members in the decision.

“It’s hard to imagine this current court coming to that same decision,” Sanchez said. 

The court has pushed back against Trump in some instances. In certain cases, for example, the justices have ruled that the administration must treat migrants fairly, as required under the U.S. Constitution’s promise of due process.

Last year, the justices twice placed limits on the administration’s attempt to implement Trump’s invocation of a 1798 law called the Alien Enemies Act, which historically has been employed only in wartime, to swiftly deport Venezuelan migrants who it accused of being members of the Tren de Aragua gang.

BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP 

The court is almost at the end of its current term, but has not yet ruled in a major case involving perhaps the most audacious piece of Trump’s restrictive immigration agenda. Based on questions asked by the justices during arguments in the case in April, the court may hand Trump a defeat by ruling against his executive order that would deny birthright citizenship to hundreds of thousands of babies born each year on U.S. soil.

Trump’s order instructed U.S. agencies not to recognize the citizenship of children born in the United States if neither parent is an American citizen or legal permanent resident, also called a “green card” holder. 

The lower court found Trump’s order to be inconsistent with the Constitution’s 14th Amendment, which long has been interpreted as granting citizenship to virtually anyone born on U.S. ​soil, with some narrow exceptions including the children of foreign diplomats or members of an enemy occupying force.

The 14th Amendment’s provision at issue, called the Citizenship Clause, states: “All persons born or naturalized ⁠in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.”

A decision could come as soon as Monday.

(Reporting by Andrew Chung; Editing by Will Dunham)

source

WASHINGTON, June 25 (Reuters) – U.S. President Donald Trump signed an agriculture related executive order on Thursday, the White House said, adding the move was aimed at strengthening the security of the United States’ food supply.

(Reporting by Jasper Ward in Washington)

source

By Jody Godoy

June 25 (Reuters) – U.S. President Donald Trump is expected to nominate Adam Candeub, the general counsel at the Federal Communications Commission, to take over as the Justice Department’s antitrust chief, a source familiar with the matter confirmed on Thursday.

Trump met with Candeub, acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, Federal Trade Commission Chairman Andrew Ferguson and White House counsel David Warrington about the job this week, the source said.

A White House official declined to comment.

Acting Assistant Attorney General Omeed Assefi currently leads the division, which shares federal antitrust authority with the FTC. Assefi has been planning to step down later this month, according to a source familiar with his plans.

During Candeub’s tenure at the FCC, the broadcast regulator has opened an investigation into Disney’s diversity practices and is probing whether ABC daytime talk ​show “The View” violated equal-time rules for interviews with political candidates.   

Candeub authored the FTC chapter in the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 policy platform, which laid out ways the consumer protection and antitrust agency could champion conservative causes. 

A longtime professor at Michigan State University, Candeub served in the Commerce Department and Justice Department during Trump’s first term.

(Reporting by Mrinmay Dey in Mexico City; additional reporting by Steve Holland in Washington; Editing by Rod Nickel)

source

U.S. District Judge Glen H. Davidson ruled Wednesday that the plaintiffs in Harris v. DeSoto County did not provide enough evidence that DeSoto County district maps were drawn to intentionally dilute Black voting power.

In ruling for DeSoto County, Davidson wrote, “plaintiffs cannot prove their claims for vote dilution pursuant to Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, and judgment must be awarded to defendants.”

Davidson’s ruling comes after hearing arguments in the case in March.

The federal lawsuit, filed in September of 2024, alleged that the 2022 DeSoto County electoral map diluted Black voting power in county office elections. The plaintiffs sought a new redistricting plan and special elections for positions on the boards of supervisors and education and for the election commission, plus the offices of constable and justice court judge.

The ruling comes in the wake of the recent U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in Louisiana v Callias. The decision weakened the federal Voting Rights Act’s protections against racially discriminatory redistricting.

The ruling triggered protests and political battles over redistricting and the future of voting rights across the country.

The ACLU of Mississippi released a stateme nt calling the decision in the DeSoto County case “deeply disappointing.”

“The (recent U.S. Supreme Court) Callais opinion pretends to adhere to the text of the Voting Rights Act and only updates the test for proving vote dilution,” the statement read. “In reality, the Supreme Court is directing federal courts to close their eyes and ignore the clear results of discriminatory maps.”

Mike Hurst, state Republican Party chairman, represented DeSoto County in the case. Hurst told MPB the case was nothing more than, “Democrats are mad they can’t win an election in DeSoto County because it’s a Republican county.”

DeSoto County, located just south of Memphis in northwest Mississippi, has been one of the state’s fastest growing counties for years. The Black population of DeSoto also has been growing and now represents more than 30% of the total population of 190,000.

None of the 25 county offices determined by the map is held by a Black person. However, DeSoto County does have a Black sheriff elected countywide, Democratic Black state legislators elected from majority-Black districts and a Black Republican House member elected from a majority-white district. The lawsuit did not address legislative districts.

___

This story was originally published by Mississippi Today and distributed through a partnership with The Associated Press.

source

By Steve Holland

WASHINGTON, June 25 (Reuters) – U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio will host a summit on July 15 that will include dozens of countries to discuss ways to counter a resurgence in political violence, a State Department official said on Thursday.

The “ministerial on resurgence of political terrorism” will be held in Washington and Rubio plans to invite representatives of more than 60 countries from regions including the Western Hemisphere, Europe and Asia, the official said.

The summit follows President Donald Trump’s counterterrorism strategy, which he signed in May, focused on identifying and neutralizing what the White House called “violent, secular political ​groups whose ideology is anti-American, radically transgender or anarchist, such as Antifa.”

The State Department official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the global threat has not been adequately addressed in the past.

“Our counterterrorism operating system needs an update to deal with the reality of such threats, to protect American citizens and U.S. national security and interests,” the official said.

U.S. efforts target activity that meets the definition of terrorism: assassinations, kidnapping, violent threats to government, facilities, and law enforcement as well as attacks on critical infrastructure and military personnel, the official said.

After the assassination in September ​of conservative ⁠activist Charlie Kirk, White House aides called for a coordinated effort against unnamed left-wing groups accused of promoting violence.

The White House said the U.S. strategy would also focus on ⁠right-wing groups ​that foment violence.

(Reporting by Steve Holland; Editing by Christopher Cushing)

source