In normal times I agree.
Right now, to me, the Republicans are doing a 2018.
How can Thune let Rand Paul, Susan Collins and Alaska bitch, along with Tillis who is on his way put, and that other Utah Senator dictact?
Grok:
The two major pending Supreme Court cases most frequently cited by legal analysts and news outlets for their potential to reshape rules around the 2026 midterm elections—and to do so in ways that could benefit Republicans—are Watson v. Republican National Committee (on mail-in ballot deadlines) and Louisiana v. Callais (on the Voting Rights Act and redistricting).
Both cases were argued during the Court's 2025-2026 term (Watson in March 2026; Louisiana v. Callais in October 2025), with decisions expected by June/July 2026—well in time to affect candidate filing, campaigning, and voting procedures for the midterms. The Court's 6-3 conservative majority has signaled skepticism toward the positions advanced by voting-rights and Democratic groups in both disputes. Here's a breakdown of each:
1. Watson v. Republican National Committee (docket 24-1260) — Mail-in ballot receipt deadlines
This case tests whether federal statutes that set a uniform “Election Day” for congressional elections (laws dating to 1845) require that ballots must be received by election officials by that date, or whether states can continue counting mail-in/absentee ballots that are postmarked by Election Day but arrive a few days later.
Background: Mississippi (and roughly a dozen to 30 other states) passed or retained laws allowing ballots postmarked on time to be counted if received within 5 business days (or similar windows) after Election Day. The Republican National Committee, Mississippi Republican Party, and others sued, arguing this creates a “second Election Day,” violates federal law's single-day rule, invites fraud or disputes, and undermines election finality. Lower courts split; the 5th Circuit sided with the challengers.ec25aa
During arguments (March 2026): Conservative justices (including Alito and Kavanaugh) expressed concerns about indefinite counting windows, potential for late ballots to flip results, and historical intent that ballots be in by Election Day. Liberal justices pushed back that Congress, not courts, should set the rule and that strict receipt deadlines could disenfranchise voters (military, elderly, disabled, etc.).
Why it could favor Republicans: A ruling for the RNC would invalidate the extended receipt windows in multiple states, forcing a uniform “must be received by Election Day” rule for federal races. Analyses note this would shrink the mail-in voting window, which studies and campaigns show is used disproportionately by Democratic-leaning voters in urban and suburban areas. It would also reduce post-election counting periods that have sometimes produced late Democratic-leaning ballots in close races, aligning with long-standing Republican “election integrity” priorities.
2. Louisiana v. Callais (consolidated with Robinson v. Callais, dockets 24-109 & 24-110) — Voting Rights Act Section 2 and majority-minority districts
This case asks whether Section 2 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act (which prohibits vote dilution based on race) can require or permit state legislatures to draw “majority-minority” congressional districts where race is the predominant factor, or whether doing so violates the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause by engaging in unconstitutional racial gerrymandering.
Background: After a federal court found Louisiana's prior map diluted Black voting power, the Republican-controlled legislature drew a second majority-Black district (increasing Black opportunity districts from one to two out of six). Republican lawmakers and voters then challenged their own map, arguing the race-conscious remedy itself discriminates. The case directly tests the continuing vitality of Section 2’s redistricting protections in the post-Shelby County (2013) era.
During arguments: Conservative justices appeared open to significantly narrowing or limiting Section 2’s application to redistricting, questioning whether race-based districting is still constitutionally permissible decades after the VRA’s passage.84d16f
Why it could favor Republicans: A broad ruling against the VRA provision could let Republican-led Southern legislatures redraw maps without creating or preserving majority-Black districts. Nonpartisan analyses estimate this could eliminate 10–20+ Democratic-held (predominantly Black) seats across the South and elsewhere, potentially handing Republicans a net gain of roughly a dozen House seats in the 2026 midterms and solidifying their House majority going forward—especially if the decision lands early enough for states with late filing deadlines to redraw maps.
A third case, NRSC v. FEC (on lifting federal limits on coordinated party-candidate spending), is also pending and could give national party committees (including Republican ones) more direct spending power, but it is not framed in reporting as one of the core pair tied to voter mechanics and redistricting for the 2026 cycle.95e000314524
These outcomes are not guaranteed—the Court could issue narrower rulings—but the conservative majority's track record and the tenor of arguments have led election-law experts across the spectrum to highlight these two as the biggest potential game-changers for Republican advantages in map-drawing and voting rules ahead of the midterms. Decisions are due before the Court's summer recess.