Reposted by David Daley
What is the Trump administration planning to do to undermine the 2026 midterms, and how are advocates responding?
We discuss on Your Call today w/ @davedaley.bsky.social & @ariberman.bsky.social
Add your q's here & stream live 10am PT @kalwradio.bsky.social!
www.kalw.org/show/your-ca...
kalw.org
The Authoritarian Playbook: Trump’s attacks on the 2026 midterms
On Monday, the Supreme Court rejected Trump’s restrictions on voting by mail, which could have disenfranchised millions of voters in the midterms. Now what?
![An excerpt from Justice Gorsuch's opinion in Slaughter:
"If allowing so much legislative and judicial power to accumulate in the President’s hands invites real risks, the question becomes: Who will address them?
At first blush, the most natural answer might seem Congress. Aware now that the premise on which it apparently proceeded was flawed—independent agencies are not so independent after all—Congress might wish to reconsider how much power should remain in the President’s hands. But if that seems a straightforward solution, there’s a straightforward problem with it. Of course, Congress still
possesses tools—most notably its appropriations authority—to “influence how the President exercises” his legislative and judicial functions. Learning Resources v. Trump, 607 U. S. 229, 271 (2026) (GORSUCH, J., concurring). But “[a]ny President keen on his own authority . . . will have a strong incentive to veto” any effort to reclaim those powers. Id., at 270–271. The consequence is a ratchet effect: Authorities Congress once delegated by a simple majority may
now require a veto-proof supermajority to retrieve.
Perhaps, then, if any real response is to come it will have
to come from this Court."](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:nmnbwegfw2uvkwbtijlcy6c6/bafkreidit6asblo2etuzqwr4yt74d4brfrlp3ea3dn6ofi7vlmd5hubude)
![The majority’s order grapples with virtually none of this.
Indeed, it does not even acknowledge that the District
Court’s discriminatory-intent finding is reviewed for clear
error. Much of its reasoning rests on its assertion that, even
as to the plaintiffs’ Fourteenth Amendment claim, “the Dis-
trict Court’s analysis departed from Callais.” Ante, at 3.
That is wrong twice over. First, Callais “said not a word
about the standard for Fourteenth Amendment intentional-
discrimination claims.” Caster, 608 U. S., at ___
(SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting) (slip op., at 4). Instead, Callais
was focused on changing the Court’s law on “exactly what
§2 of the Voting Rights Act demands,” not what the Consti-
tution demands. 608 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 19). Second,
Callais said that its newly fashioned test for §2 disparate-
impact claims is not an intent-based test. It acknowledged
that §2 “does not demand a finding of intentional discrimi-
nation.” Id., at ___ (slip op., at 23). It also denied JUSTICE
KAGAN’s charge that the majority’s new test was an intent
test in all but name. Id., at ____ (slip op., at 35). It is hard
to see how the District Court’s finding of discriminatory in-
tent under the Fourteenth Amendment could have de-
parted from an opinion that purported to say nothing about
how to find discriminatory intent under the Fourteenth
Amendment. The Court’s apparently oblivious insistence
to the contrary today cannot be squared with what Callais
said on its face just over one month ago. See id., at ___, n.
5 (KAGAN, J., dissenting) (slip op., at 25, n. 5) (“[T]he major-
ity closes its opinion by suggesting it is not requiring a vote-
dilution plaintiff to present evidence of ‘discriminatory in-
tent.’ Which, if true, would be welcome news” (citation
omitted](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:6h7b2i6ttw3l4t7pvbvxdith/bafkreihd4do2eirxszmxkxmtifhkxrkoyyqj6s2rbmioafbeusioqgwme4)
