May 5, 2026

(TriceEdneyWire.com) - Elections aren’t supposed to stop midstream, but in Louisiana, they did. After the Supreme Court stepped into the state’s redistricting fight, Governor Jeff Landry halted congressional primaries that were already underway. People were voting, and the rules changed in real time. That is not a technical glitch. It is power being exercised—and protected.

This is not about lines on a map. It is about who holds power and how that power determines who gets resources. The Court has long treated partisan gerrymandering as a “political question,” something it prefers to avoid. Even when it intervenes on racial grounds, as in Allen v. Milligan, the result is rarely resolution. States redraw maps, courts revisit them, and uncertainty lingers. In Louisiana, litigation like Robinson v. Ardoin has created a cycle rather than a solution, leaving elections—and voters—caught in the middle.

There is nothing new about this. After Reconstruction, when Black political power briefly expanded, it was met not only with violence but with precision. District lines were drawn to contain that power, ensuring that even when Black people could vote, their votes would not translate into governing authority.

In 1868, Benjamin Franklin Randolph, a Black state senator in South Carolina, was assassinated in broad daylight at a train station in Abbeville. His killing was not random. It was part of a broader campaign to suppress Black political leadership—not just at the ballot box, but through terror. The methods have changed over time, but the objective of controlling Black political power has not.

Today’s gerrymandering uses more sophisticated tools, but it serves a familiar purpose. When districts are engineered to predetermine outcomes, accountability erodes. Elected officials do not have to persuade broad constituencies or compete for every vote. Too often, they do not have to deliver.

And when officials do not have to deliver, resources follow power rather than need. That is where the economic consequences become unmistakable.

Communities with diminished political influence are less able to secure investment. Schools go unrenovated. Infrastructure projects stall. Hospitals struggle or close. Broadband expansion stops just short of the neighborhoods that need it most. These are not isolated failures; they are the cumulative effects of political decisions shaped by distorted maps. Over time, those decisions constrain opportunity, limit mobility, and reinforce inequality.

This is how gerrymandering feeds the racial wealth gap—not through a single dramatic act, but through accumulation. A project delayed, a program underfunded, a priority shifted. Each decision may seem small, even routine. Together, they produce disparities that are then treated as inevitable rather than engineered.

Black communities have experienced this pattern for generations. Whether through “packing,” which concentrates Black voters into a small number of districts, or “cracking,” which disperses them across many, the result is the same: diminished influence. Diminished influence translates directly into diminished economic capacity.

Representation is not symbolic; it is distributive. Who counts politically determines who receives investment, protection, and opportunity. Louisiana’s current turmoil makes that reality plain. When elections can be halted and maps redrawn in real time, the rules of representation themselves become tools of power. And when power is managed, so is the flow of resources.

Alabama offers a parallel lesson. The Supreme Court’s decision in Allen v. Milligan acknowledged that Black voters were being shortchanged under the Voting Rights Act, but that recognition did not end the struggle. It simply opened another phase in a continuing contest over representation and investment. The fight over maps is, at its core, a fight over whether underinvestment will persist.

Gerrymandering is not the only driver of economic inequality, but it is one of the most durable and least visible. Distorted maps produce distorted outcomes, and over time, distorted economies. We debate maps as if they are abstractions. They are not. They are blueprints for who prospers—and who does not.

May 1, 2026 

(TriceEdneyWire.com) - Democrats have momentum as the midterms approach. A string of recent victories has fueled optimism that Democrats could retake the House of Representatives and even reclaim the Senate. At a moment of rising global tensions and persistent economic strain on working families, Democratic control of Congress would offer a critical check on the Trump administration.

But Senate majorities are not built on national waves alone. They are won or lost in a handful of fiercely competitive states. And this cycle, the path to a Democratic majority runs directly through the South.

Texas, North Carolina, and Georgia could determine control of the Senate. While each state has its own political identity, they share a common reality: Black voters are central to any winning Democratic coalition. If Democrats fail to fully invest in mobilizing Black voters, they risk repeating the mistakes that have cost them power in the past.

That challenge has become more urgent in light of recent Supreme Court decisions that gutted the Voting Rights Act. Now, states are largely free to gerrymander and suppress Black political power. Without the preclearance protections that once required states with histories of discrimination to get federal approval before changing voting laws, access to the ballot increasingly depends on post-facto litigation rather than prevention.

In practical terms, that means Black voter participation is shaped not just by enthusiasm, but by the rules governing registration, district lines, and access to the polls. In key Southern states, these structural barriers disproportionately affect Black voters, making sustained investment in turnout efforts even more critical.

Start with Texas. Long seen as a Republican stronghold, the state has been inching toward competitiveness as its major metro areas of Houston, Dallas, Austin, and San Antonio grow more diverse. Black voters make up roughly 12 to 13 percent of the electorate, but their turnout has been inconsistent, especially in midterm elections.

In 2020, engagement surged in urban counties, helping narrow statewide margins. But that progress slipped in 2022, when turnout declined. For Democrats, even modest gains in Black turnout alongside strong gains with Latino voters could transform Texas from a long shot into a true battleground. A breakthrough victory for Democrat James Talarico would flip a seat and reshape the national political map.

North Carolina presents a different kind of opportunity. The state has already been competitive for Democrats in recent years. With Black voters accounting for roughly 20 to 23 percent of the electorate, statewide races are often decided by razor-thin margins. A one- or two-point increase in Black turnout can determine the outcome.

Yet, like Texas, North Carolina saw a drop in participation from presidential-year highs to the 2022 midterms. Democrats have a strong candidate in former Governor Roy Cooper, who has consistently demonstrated the ability to win statewide. But his success has always depended on robust Black voter engagement—which requires sustained national investment, not just candidate strength. Democrats have the right candidate in North Carolina, but the party must follow through with the right strategy. That strategy starts with robust resources for Black turnout across urban and rural communities.

Then there is Georgia, where the blueprint for success already exists. Black voters routinely make up nearly a third of the electorate in high-turnout elections and were instrumental in Democratic victories in the 2020 presidential election and the subsequent Senate runoffs. The reelection of Senator Raphael Warnock confirmed that these gains were not a one-time surge but the result of years of organizing and investment. Georgia shows what is possible when Black voters are prioritized as the foundation of a winning strategy. That approach must be reinforced for Senator Jon Ossoff to secure reelection this year.

What ties these states together is not just their competitiveness, but the fact that Black turnout is not guaranteed. Just because Black voters dislike Trump does not mean they are automatically ready to vote for Democrats. Democrats’ fate with Black voters rises and falls based on investment, outreach, and whether Black voters feel seen and heard. Too often, Democrats assume that demographic change alone will deliver victory. It will not. Elections are decided by the voters who actually show up on Election Day. Black turnout, especially in midterm cycles, must be earned.

This is where Democrats have stumbled before. Underinvestment in organizing, particularly in Black communities, has led to missed opportunities in states that were within reach. The lesson from recent elections is unmistakable: when Black turnout is high, Democrats win. When it dips, even slightly, the path narrows or disappears entirely.

The stakes could not be higher. Control of the Senate determines which laws pass, which judges are confirmed, and whether a governing agenda can move forward at all. In an era of razor-thin margins, a single seat can decide the direction of the country.

If Democrats are serious about reclaiming the Senate in 2026, they must be equally serious about where they invest their time, resources, and attention. That means looking south and committing, early and aggressively, to turning out Black voters in Texas, North Carolina, and Georgia—especially in a legal landscape where Black access to the ballot is under attack.

The path is there. The data is clear. The only question is whether Democrats will act on it.

Kevin Harris is a Democratic strategist who has advised over 100 campaigns and ballot measures, including the past five presidential elections. 

• $4.6 billion to eliminate Community Development Block Grants (CBDG)
• $922 million cut to homelessness assistance
• $285M reduction in rental assistance that helps the elderly and people with disabilities; 
• $206 million from family self-sufficiency and job training programs:
• $60 million to eliminate programs for fair housing investigation, enforcement and training programs