Republican state senators don't face election this year. Trump's urging for them to redistrict to help flip the House seat held by prominent Democrat Jim Clyburn was met with opposition.
WHAT’S HAPPENING TODAY: Good afternoon and happy Tuesday, Daily on Energy readers! We hope you had a restful Memorial Day weekend, hopefully with better weather than in Washington, D.C. Callie is at the helm of the newsletter this week, as Maydeen is taking a much-deserved break traveling through Italy! 🍝🇮🇹☀️ Be sure to spare her […]
South Carolina's Republican-majority Senate voted to stop a measure to push a new congressional map forward — an open rejection of President Donald Trump's demand for redistricting, according to reports.As early voting began on Tuesday for the already scheduled June primary, a measure to accept a redrawn congressional map failed in the state's Senate in a 20-24 vote, NBC News reported.The vote "was a surprise rejection of President Donald Trump, who had urged lawmakers to pass a redrawn map that eliminated the state’s single majority-Black district and gave Republicans a chance to win the seat," according to NBC News.Last week, the South Carolina House had approved the map and aimed to enact it for the midterm elections this fall.That changed on Tuesday, despite pressure from the Trump White House. Lawmakers had considered seeking another primary election for the districts affected by the new map in August, but some GOP lawmakers ended up changing their minds."Neither my conscience nor my common sense will allow me to stop an election that is already underway," said Republican state Sen. Richard Cash, who reportedly changed his vote citing the timing.Earlier this month, South Carolina Republican Senate Majority Leader Shane Massey said that a new, last-minute map could be "short-sighted," according to NBC News."I believe that our state is stronger with vibrant parties. I think we, as a whole, are stronger when we have a clash of ideas. I think that’s true at the national level. I think it’s true at the state level. We are stronger when we have a clash of ideas and we can discuss those policy goals," Massey said. "Republicans are stronger when the Democratic Party is vibrant and viable."
The fresh strikes from the U.S., and the warning Iran issued in return, have brought renewed instability to the markets.
Economic analysts tore into Trump's idea for lowering grocery prices Tuesday, saying it won't work — and will cause more harm than good, according to a new report. "The president declared that he was taking 'a very historic action to substantially lower costs for consumers,'" MS NOW political contributor Steve Benen wrote, referring to Trump's comments at a May 21 event. "I have bad news for those who believed him." Trump has been touting his success in lowering grocery prices, according to Benen. The Trump administration loosened federal regulations that require grocery stores and air-conditioning companies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from cooling equipment, according to reporting by AP. Although Trump said the move would "substantially lower costs for consumers," AP reported, Benen pointed to a story from The New York Times that found it will "likely have little impact on prices," based on market analysts. "This move is highly unlikely to produce any noticeable reduction in grocery prices for consumers," food economist David Ortega told the NYT. "We're talking about refrigeration, and that's a very small share of the overall cost of food." According to market analysts who spoke to the NYT, the bigger driver of grocery store prices is "tariffs, extreme weather, and soaring fuel prices since the start of the conflict in Iran." According to reporting by NOTUS, the savings might amount to "$2 per year." Meanwhile, industry groups told the AP that Trump's supposed quick fix "could even raise prices because manufacturers have already redesigned products, retooled factories and trained workers" for newer refrigeration equipment.
Alabama is likely to appeal the ruling, which stops an effort to use a new congressional map that would likely cost Democrats a majority-Black district.
The Republican-led South Carolina Senate on Tuesday voted against a measure to advance a new congressional map, ending the last-minute redistricting effort in the state for now
The money is not the worst part of the slush-fund power grab.
A federal three-judge panel has once again blocked Alabama from using its 2023 congressional map, ordering the state to use a race-blind court-drawn plan for its 2026 elections — and pulling no punches about why.In a 102-page ruling filed Tuesday, Judges Stanley Marcus, Anna Manasco, and Terry Moorer found that the Alabama Legislature "doubled down on racially discriminatory vote dilution" when it passed its 2023 redistricting plan — and did so deliberately."We again cannot understand the 2023 Plan as anything other than intentionally discriminatory," the judges wrote.The court ordered Secretary of State Wes Allen to administer Alabama's remaining 2026 congressional elections — including August special primaries — using the "Special Master Plan," a race-blind map previously imposed by the court that created a second district where Black voters have an opportunity to elect a candidate of their choice.The ruling comes after the U.S. Supreme Court vacated the court's earlier permanent injunction and ordered the panel to reconsider in light of Louisiana v. Callais, an April 2026 decision that raised the bar for Voting Rights Act claims. The three-judge panel concluded that Alabama still loses under the new standard — both on constitutional and statutory grounds.The judges found zero evidence that the legislature acted for partisan reasons and rejected the state's attempt to use Callais as a shield. "Alabama cannot use Callais to legitimize its pre-Callais decision to double down on the discriminatory vote dilution that we and the Supreme Court found," they wrote.The court also cited the chaos that would result from forcing a map switch now. Alabama's elections director testified it would take a "Herculean effort" to redistrict voters in just seven days — a process that normally takes months.Senate Minority Leader Bobby Singleton, a Greensboro Democrat and plaintiff in the case, had warned the legislature it was on the wrong side of the law. "We're definitely going to be filing actions in the state constitution," Singleton said after the legislature passed its special primary election law last month.The court denied a stay, but Alabama was expected to appeal immediately to the Supreme Court.