Breathtakingly Dumb' - Hakeem Jeffries Makes Worst Mistake of His Career
Washington, D.C. - May 14, 2026
Legal Analyst Jonathan Turley Calls Virginia Democrats’ Redistricting Push “Breathtakingly Dumb” After Supreme Court Strikes Down Map
Fox News legal analyst and George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley sharply criticized Virginia Democrats on Friday, describing their failed attempt to redraw congressional districts as a “breathtakingly dumb move” that could have significant political consequences ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.
Turley made the remarks during an appearance on Hannity, hours after the Virginia Supreme Court struck down the state’s newly proposed congressional map in a 4-3 ruling. The map had been expected to heavily favor Democrats, potentially giving the party an advantage in 10 of Virginia’s 11 congressional districts.
“I said this from the beginning, this will never, ever meet judicial scrutiny,” host Sean Hannity stated, arguing that the proposal failed because lawmakers did not follow Virginia’s strict constitutional procedures for placing a constitutional amendment on the ballot.
Turley agreed, noting that Virginia has historically maintained stricter standards on redistricting than many other states. “No, that’s absolutely right, Sean, and there was a host of problems, but the most glaring was that one,” he said. “Virginia was always the gold standard for gerrymandering. Virginia doesn’t like gerrymandering — makes it very difficult to do so.”
The professor explained that Democratic lawmakers attempted to rush the proposal through ahead of the midterms, but the state Supreme Court refused to approve it. “So to get this through, they had to do a sort of bum’s rush to get this in before the midterm elections,” Turley said. “And the Supreme Court of Virginia said, ‘No, we’re not going to sign off on this.’”
Turley specifically targeted Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger, accusing her of reversing her earlier public opposition to gerrymandering once in office. “Now, this was a face-planting of legendary size for Governor Spanberger,” he said. “She had previously assured voters that she was vehemently against gerrymandering. And as soon as she was elected, she went to the hard left, and then asked and pushed through the most radical gerrymandering scheme in the country.”
Hannity noted that the campaign behind the proposal reportedly cost tens of millions of dollars, with a significant portion reportedly fronted by a political action committee controlled by House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries. “Sixty-four million,” Hannity said.
Turley argued the failed effort could politically damage Democrats in Virginia, particularly among independents and Republicans who viewed the proposal as an attempt to dilute their representation. “In addition to the 64 million, they alienated half of this state,” Turley said. “A lot of Republicans and independents are not going to forget this. They don’t view this as partisan; they view it as personal. You attempted to erase them in terms of representation.”
The discussion also touched on the national implications of the ruling and recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions limiting race-based districting under the Voting Rights Act. Hannity suggested Republicans could gain additional congressional districts nationwide as states revisit maps. Turley agreed that Democrats miscalculated by reopening the redistricting fight.
“This was just a breathtakingly dumb move by the Democrats,” Turley concluded. “When they began, when they went down this road, I wrote a column saying, you need to consider this because the Democratic states were already gerrymandered.”
He pointed to states such as California, Illinois, and Massachusetts, where Democrats had already secured favorable maps years earlier. Turley also referenced upcoming population shifts from the 2030 census that could further benefit Republican-led states.
“So the Democrats are looking at a colossal loss,” he said. “And I think that’s one of the reasons why they want to pack the Supreme Court and make radical changes to the constitutional system before it’s too late.”
The Virginia Supreme Court’s ruling is seen as a major setback for Democrats in their effort to counter Republican-led redistricting initiatives in other states. Democratic leaders have already announced plans to appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, though legal experts describe the appeal as a long-shot bid.
The controversy highlights the intense partisan battle over congressional maps heading into the 2026 midterms, with both parties aggressively pursuing advantages wherever possible.
Election Landslide — Hakeem Jeffries CRUSHED
Washington, D.C. - June 3, 2026
Virginia Supreme Court Strikes Down Democratic Congressional Map; Jeffries and Party Leaders Discuss Dramatic Responses
Washington, D.C. — The Virginia Supreme Court has overturned a voter-approved congressional redistricting plan backed by Democrats, dealing a significant setback to the party’s efforts to gain seats ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.
In a 4-3 ruling issued Friday, the court concluded that the Democratic-controlled legislature failed to follow required procedures when placing a constitutional amendment on the ballot authorizing mid-decade redistricting. Although voters narrowly approved the amendment on April 21, the decision effectively invalidated the result.
Writing for the majority, Justice D. Arthur Kelsey said lawmakers presented the constitutional amendment to voters “in an unprecedented manner.” He added, “This violation irreparably undermines the integrity of the resulting referendum vote and renders it null and void.”
The rejected map had been expected to give Democrats an advantage in 10 of the state’s 11 congressional districts. Democratic leaders, including House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, held a private meeting Saturday to discuss responses to the ruling. According to The New York Times, participants expressed frustration and considered several options, including what journalist Reid J. Epstein described as an “audacious and possibly far-fetched idea” to replace the entire state Supreme Court in order to reinstate the map.
“The most dramatic idea they discussed — which would involve an unusual gambit to replace the entire state Supreme Court, with a goal of reinstating their gerrymandered map — drew mixed reactions on the call,” Epstein reported.
Other ideas discussed included ways to flip two or three Republican-held seats under the current map and a “bank-shot proposal to redraw the congressional lines anyway.” Jeffries vowed that the ruling “will not stand,” and Democratic leaders in Virginia filed a motion late Friday seeking to pause the decision while pursuing an emergency appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The call reflected what Epstein described as the “desperation and fury” currently gripping the party. It was not clear that the proposal to replace the court would be viable or palatable to Gov. Abigail Spanberger or Democrats in the Virginia General Assembly. A number of Virginia House Democrats participated in the discussion.
The ruling comes amid a broader national redistricting battle. A recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in Louisiana v. Callais significantly narrowed key provisions of the Voting Rights Act by ruling that racially drawn districts are unconstitutional, opening opportunities for Republicans in several Southern states. Combined with aggressive GOP-led redistricting in states such as Florida, the Virginia decision is expected to strengthen Republican advantages heading into the midterms.
Democratic leaders had hoped the Virginia map would help counter Republican gains elsewhere, but the court’s decision has reshaped the battle for House control. While some maps remain subject to legal challenges, the overall trajectory has shifted against Democrats in several key states.
JUST IN: Democrats Suffer CRUSHING BLOW Ruling Is A Disaster for the Party Supreme Court
Washington, D.C. - June 3, 2026
Alabama Asks Supreme Court to Restore 2023 Congressional Map; Redistricting Wars Shift Further Toward Republicans
Washington, D.C. — Alabama has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to allow the state to use a 2023 congressional map with one majority-Black district rather than a court-ordered map containing two such districts ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.
Alabama Solicitor General A. Barrett Bowdre told the justices that the state should not be forced to “hold elections under a map that was erroneously ordered at best and unconstitutional at worst.” He argued that Americans deserve “a republic free of racial sorting now,” and that state officials should have the opportunity to provide it.
The request comes after the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Louisiana v. Callais, which significantly narrowed the parameters of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and declared that districts drawn specifically to favor race or an ethnic group are unconstitutional. Republicans have used the ruling to advance maps in several Southern states.
At the latest count, Republicans could add as many as 14 additional congressional seats in the fall midterms through redistricting, while Democrats could add six, with fewer than 16 seats considered toss-ups or close. Specific projected gains include Ohio (R+2), Missouri (R+1), Tennessee (R+1), North Carolina (R+1), Florida (R+4), and Texas (R+5). Democrats project gains in California (D+5) and Utah (D+1).
Republicans could also pick up additional seats in South Carolina, Louisiana, Alabama, and Mississippi following the Court’s narrowing of the Voting Rights Act. In Tennessee, the Republican-led legislature recently approved a new map that removes the state’s only Democrat-held, majority-Black district, resulting in an all-Republican delegation.
In a separate development, the Virginia Supreme Court struck down a Democratic-inspired gerrymandered congressional map on Friday in a 4-3 ruling. The court concluded that the Democratic-controlled legislature failed to follow required procedures when placing a constitutional amendment on the ballot. The rejected map would have given Democrats nine of the state’s 11 House seats despite receiving only about 47 percent of the vote in the last congressional election.
Democratic leaders, including Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, are assessing the potential impact on the party’s chances of regaining control of Congress. The combined effect of court rulings and Republican-led redistricting has substantially altered the landscape heading into the midterms, with Republicans appearing to hold a clear advantage in the ongoing redistricting battles.
It Finally PASSED 390-9... OVERWHELMINGLY - Americans Cheering
Washington, D.C. - June 3, 2026
House Passes Housing for the 21st Century Act by 390-9 Vote, Advancing Bipartisan Supply-Side Reforms
Washington, D.C. — The U.S. House of Representatives passed the Housing for the 21st Century Act on Tuesday by a vote of 390-9, sending a bipartisan measure aimed at reducing regulatory barriers, modernizing federal housing programs, and expanding the nation’s housing supply to the Senate.
The legislation was co-sponsored by House Financial Services Committee Chairman French Hill (R-AR) and Ranking Member Maxine Waters (D-CA). It cleared the committee in December before receiving near-unanimous support on the House floor.
The bill directs the Government Accountability Office to identify gaps and inefficiencies in existing federal housing programs, updates the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s HOME Investment Partnerships Program, reduces regulatory obstacles that have slowed housing development, and provides banks with greater flexibility to deploy capital toward expanding housing supply.
House Speaker Mike Johnson described the measure as a necessary response to affordability challenges.
“Housing costs have soared beyond the reach of millions of American families thanks to Bidenflation, while outdated and burdensome red tape has constrained our nation’s affordable housing supply and limited our ability to expand it,” Johnson said.
“Today’s House passage of the Housing for the 21st Century Act is a critical step toward addressing this shortage by reducing unnecessary regulatory barriers, modernizing HUD programs, and giving banks flexibility to deploy capital to increase our housing supply,” he added.
Reps. Hill and Mike Flood (R-NE) outlined a similar argument in a recent opinion piece, writing that when there are not enough homes, prices rise. They described the bill as including real, bipartisan solutions to boost development by clearing out red tape and letting communities and local banks do their jobs.
Supporters argue that housing scarcity has been worsened by regulatory complexity, permitting delays, and compliance costs that increase development expenses and timelines. The legislation focuses on supply-side reforms rather than new subsidies, addressing structural issues within federal housing policy.
The overwhelming 390-9 vote margin reflects rare bipartisan agreement in a closely divided Congress. Nearly all members of both parties supported the bill, signaling broad recognition that housing affordability has become a pressing national concern.
The co-sponsorship by Hill and Waters — lawmakers who often diverge on financial policy — underscores the breadth of support. While their broader philosophies differ, both have emphasized the need to increase housing availability and streamline federal programs.
The bill now heads to the Senate, where housing reform has drawn interest from lawmakers on both sides. Senate Banking Committee Chairman Tim Scott (R-SC) has previously co-sponsored housing legislation with Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and has signaled openness to measures addressing supply constraints.
Whether the Senate takes up the measure in its current form or seeks modifications remains to be seen. The decisive House vote could increase pressure for action as housing affordability continues to feature prominently in economic debates.
If enacted, the legislation would mark one of the most sweeping bipartisan housing reform efforts in recent years, targeting regulatory structures rather than expanding federal spending.
