MAJOR UPDATE at US Supreme Court

Mark Elias's team successfully sued the state of New York, arguing that a congressional map discriminated against minority voters, specifically on Staten Island. This victory is expected to create a Democratic-leaning seat. In response, Republicans, described as being in 'full-scale panic mode,' bypassed the New York state appellate courts and filed an emergency request directly with the US Supreme Court to block the implementation of the new map.

Mark Elias states, 'we sued the state of New York for drawing a map that discriminated against minority voters in New York City, specifically on Staten Island. And we won.' He adds, 'Republicans are in full-scale panic mode. And they have gone straight to the US Supreme Court...to try to block this victory to try to keep in place an illegal map.'

The hosts predict the Supreme Court will not take the New York redistricting case. The primary reason is that the original challenge was based on New York's Voting Rights Act, a state law, which the US Supreme Court does not interpret. Additionally, the Republicans' decision to skip the normal state court appeals process (intermediate and high courts in New York) is seen as a sign of desperation and a procedural misstep that makes Supreme Court intervention highly improbable, especially on an emergency basis close to an election cycle (Purcell doctrine).

Brian Tyler Cohen explains, 'this was a challenge to the map under New York state law...the US Supreme Court doesn't interpret state law.' Mark Elias adds, 'They skipped the rest of the state court system...going straight from a trial court on a question of state law in New York to the US Supreme Court on an emergency basis, if that isn't the definition of desperation, I don't know what it is.'

The discussion extends beyond New York to highlight the broader landscape of mid-cycle redistricting, emphasizing the need for continued effort to 'run through the tape' on new maps. Significant progress for Democrats is noted in California (plus five seats) and potential gains in Virginia and Utah. Republicans face challenges in states like Florida, where drawing new maps without exposing incumbents is difficult. The overall outcome of these redistricting wars for the 2026 elections remains uncertain but is heavily influenced by these state-level legal and legislative battles.

Mark Elias states, 'we make sure that we run through the tape...we have done an important piece of this in New York, but there still needs to be a new map.' He later discusses California's 'plus five' for Democrats and Republicans' 'plus five' in Texas, and the complexities for Republicans in Florida to avoid exposing incumbents.

The host criticizes legacy media for its 'impotency and fecklessness,' 'both sidesism,' and failure to adequately cover voting rights and elections. This is contrasted with Democracy Docket, which Mark Elias founded to provide direct, advocacy-oriented coverage of voting and election issues. Elias expresses annoyance at the New York Times launching a similarly named newsletter, 'The Docket,' emphasizing Democracy Docket as the original and more committed source.

Brian Tyler Cohen states, 'the benefit of of subscribing to democracy docket is is you are an antidote to frankly the impotency and fecklessness of legacy media that has failed to meet the moment and has gotten us into this mess because of both sidesism.' Mark Elias mentions the New York Times releasing 'the docket' and says, 'don't fall for imitators. There's only one original democracy docket.'