Originally published June 12, 2026 for our weekly Issue of Mindful Intelligence Advisor.  Subscribe to get weekly issues.

By Paul Gordon Collier, Editor

“In a society governed passively by free markets and free elections, organized greed always defeats disorganized democracy.” – Matt Taibbi, from Griftopia: Bubble Machines, Vampire Squids, and the Long Con That Is Breaking America

INTRODUCTION

Since its birth, America has allowed some form of mail-in ballots, a fact proponents of today’s mass mailer elections often cite. But it wasn’t until the year 2000 that mail-in ballots were beginning to be considered as the go-to form of voting, not the voting of last resort.

Mail-in ballots are for those who could not realistically vote in person on the day of the election, now they’ve become the majority way people vote wherever they are allowed carte blanche access to the mail-in ballot

In California’s Los Angeles, a race for Mayor was decided by an overwhelming majority of mass mailer votes, with most of the total ballots coming from the ballot boxes.

The system necessitates the creation of expensive tabulation and validation machines all housed in one massive warehouse where hundreds of workers go through the process of validating and tabulating ballots. The larger the scale of the voting, the more massive the machine, and the more opportunities for fraud that will arise.

The system allows for easy ballot harvesting since the voter is not in a secure voting booth. They might be homeless on the street and get accosted and forced to sign their signature to a blank ballot, one that can be used later according to what’s needed.

The mayor’s election has turned into a flashpoint for the whole mass mailer “debate,” and progressives don’t realize that, among Americans, they’ve already lost the argument.

No matter what technological claim they can muster to assure us a massive mail voting system is more secure than voting in person on paper ballots using U.S. citizen affirming voter ID (as opposed to signature recognition software), basic common sense clearly refutes it.

Yet, they need this mass mailer voting machine, for without it their candidates would fail. Yet that desperate need for non-transparent elections is what will force them to double down on their mass mailer voter machine even as more and more people grow to understand just how harmful it is to a free people.

How this election played out, how it was covered, and what has unfolded since, is a true bellwether for the political spirit of this land. Progressives are doubling down on their claims, hiding behind technological jargon and “experts,” but plain facts even the non-engaged can see are increasingly countering them, as we see happening here.

A. ELECTION DAY

On election day, at 8:00pm local time, June 2^nd, 2026, the election results for Los Angeles Mayors race came in. These numbers represented same-day voting, early voting, and mail-in ballots already received. Over 400 ballot boxes throughout the city automatically locked, preparing for ballot collection by two-person teams.

The ballots to be counted were overwhelmingly in two categories, ballots sitting in drop boxes throughout the city and mailed-in ballots that would be given the next 7 days after the day of the election to come in.

Mail-in ballots, overall, account for more than 80% of the vote.

At 8:00pm, the incumbent, Progressive Karen Bass, secured the top spot with 34.3% of the vote while the Republican, Spencer Pratt, scored 30%. In third place was Progressive Nithya Raman at 23%. That night, Raman gave a baleful concession speech where she lamented her part in letting her supporters down.

Spencer Pratt gave a victory speech, and the political activists prepared for the battle in the general election. But that battle would never happen, and it would become clear it wouldn’t the very next day, when the numbers began to change.

B. THE SURGE

The final vote tally would see Spencer Pratt drop out of the top two, leaving Los Angeles with a choice between a far-left anti-American progressive activist and a far-left anti-American progressive activist, just what the Democratic Party, the de facto Progressive State, wanted.

Raman went from getting 23% of the early votes the early mail-in ballot counts, and the in-person votes to almost 40% from among the remaining mail-in ballots. This surge moved her ahead of Spencer Pratt, finishing at 28% to Pratt’s 23%. His support in the late ballots dropped from 30% to under 13%.

The district is 18% Republican, 23% Independent, and 51% Democrat, but somehow 70% of the remaining ballots voted for two far-left progressive candidates.

1. THE PROBABILITY – Mathematically, any AI will tell you that the statistical probability of a surge like this happening is just about nil, zero, nada, zilch, virtually impossible. It’s not unlikely, it’s statistically irrelevant as a chance happening. It is something close to randomly picking the exact same grain of sand in all the earth 100 times in a row.
2. THE DEFENSE – The bellwether defense is the claim that the further left you go in the spectrum, the longer you wait to vote. You almost never vote in person and you almost always wait to vote until the end. The reason for the surge might be mathematically impossible, but because of “the blue shift” you can always expect the furthest left candidate to have a “late surge.”

This isn’t the first time a far-left candidate managed to take out a moderate or conservative second-place candidate in a late surge, and that pattern is counted as evidence that the system works as intended.

The pattern of leftists winning during after-election vote counting is evidence that leftists are not using fraud to win elections through vote counting.

C. THE PROCESS

Los Angeles residents can vote one of four ways, early in-person voting, same-day in-person voting, mail in your ballot through the postal service, or drop your ballot off at a ballot box. Some of them might “choose” multiple options.

Nearly 82% of the residents who vote do so through the mail-in ballot. Of those, 68% were dropped off in the ballot boxes. This means more than 55% of the votes tabulated were retrieved from those ballot boxes.

On the night of the election, at 8pm local time, the ballot boxes lock. Two-person teams of election workers go out to retrieve the ballots. The exact number of teams was not given. They are employees of the county, which is overwhelmingly controlled by the progressives.

There are 400 ballot boxes for the teams to fetch ballots from.

Meanwhile the ballots aren’t done coming in, for the mailed in ballots are given 7 days after the election to arrive, if they have a postmark on or before election day on it.

There are lots of protocols to “assure” no fraud can take place, such as having two-person teams to “assure” no one can put in fake ballots. There are assurances for ballot reliance, which include signature recognition software that “exactly matches” the registered voter to confirm it belongs to them. No such exacting software exists, by the way.

All of the assurances rely on faith the technology does what they say it does, that there are no “clever ways” to easily circumvent their safeguards (because how could we know since we don’t understand the technology), and that somehow the mere creation of multiple points for fraud isn’t reason enough to abandon this mass mailer election machine.

D. THE FOLLOW-UP

As Republicans began to question the validity of the “Blue Shift” defense, the Progressive State content marketers spread the narrative that only ignorant and racist people would doubt the blue shift miracles that keep happening specifically in California, especially in Los Angeles County.

The GOP hope for California Governor, Steve Hilton, looked to be heading towards a similar fate to Pratt before it was suddenly announced he was the second-place winner. His win is offered as proof the system is just fine, but some suspect, as do I, this was done to stop the growing scrutiny on their whole allegedly corrupt system.

Johnny Law is on their trail, however, and that was first seen by First Assistant U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli, who has accused California of preventing his office from conducting a federal audit on their voter rolls. He accused the county of hiding dead and non-citizen voter registrations from the federal inquiry.

Essayli appears intent on expanding his investigation to the mass mailer election machine itself, the heart of progressive power.

An article in NBC News on this action reveals the content marketing, agit prop nature of this political activist machine. They write, “‘We will follow the evidence wherever it leads and prosecute any violations of federal election law to the fullest extent,’ said Essayli, who criticized California’s mail voting — a frequent target of Trump’s false claims of election fraud.”

Evidence of ballot harvesting has already been found from the testimonies of homeless people who claim they were paid to vote for one of the progressive candidates. One woman claimed she cast 4 or 5 ballots for payment in one day.

One citizen found a public display in a West LA Library encouraging illegal aliens to vote. The citizen wrote on X, “Riddle me this LA: If it’s illegal for non-citizens to vote, why the Hell does the West LA Library have a display for non-citizens that includes a VOTER REGISTRATION specifically for non-citizens that allows them to ‘preregister’ to vote.

“They even have a special section on the registration that allows you to vote ANONYMOUSLY if you don’t feel “safe” putting your address. Gee what could possibly go wrong?! Seems it’s be pretty easy to send in that form and get a ballot even if you legally can’t vote in California and no one would ever know if you do it anonymously and the worst part is…

“LA has apparently made this “legal” despite it being against federal law. Found at: West Los Angeles Public Library 11360 Santa Monica Blvd Los Angeles, CA 90025”

OAN claims whistleblowers from inside the California ballot processing facility are accepting ballots of 16-year-olds if they voted the right way.

There are also claims that thousands of Spencer Pratt voters have been receiving ballot rejection letters claiming their signature did not match the one on the ballot. A picture of one such letter was posted on X, but it hasn’t been confirmed.

The O’Keefe group found ballots stuffed in a library days after the election was over. O’Keefe posted on X, “We have just received this picture from within Stevenson Ranch Library near Santa Clarita, CA. The photo allegedly shows multiple ballots inside of the libraries own safe, this is where the library keeps other things such as cash.

This picture was taken last Friday. We are hopeful these ballots made it to the right processing centers.”

Remember, evidence is not proof. Evidence does not definitively, by itself prove an argument, it only helps it. So when the Progressive State Content Marketers, the MSM, claims “There is no evidence of election fraud in California,” as one MS Now reporter claimed, you know you are dealing with a marketer, not a journalist.

One of the Progressives’ content marketing satellites, “The Guardian,” posted this agit prop headline as the evidence of fraud began to emerge, “Experts warn Trump ‘inventing fraud’ in California as president ramps up baseless claims.” That’s a real headline, folks.

The Democrats’ top man in the U.S. House, Hakeen Jeffries, claims “I wouldn’t be surprised if that’s part of some far-right conspiracy theory to convince people there’s fraud in California.” This is his coded way of saying only white supremacists believe their lying eyes, don’t be a white supremacist and believe your lying eyes.

He said this AFTER a reporter, not a content marketer, said to him after claiming there was NO EVIDENCE of voter fraud in California, “There are homeless people on Skid Row admitting they were bribed with cash and drugs to vote Democrat in elections…”

SUMMARY

The bellwether takeaway from my investigation in the LA Mayors Race is the Democrats have created a source for power, the Mass Mailer Election machine, that looks increasingly to be their potential downfall.

The Progressives’ unwillingness to believe there are more victims of their policies than winners will be their end. To them, the victims who have been crying out are fringe elements clinging on to white power, whether as a white or someone now called “white-adjacent.”

Progressives do not understand the real existential harm people are perceiving they are suffering as a direct result of their policies. Real or imagined, the perceptions are profoundly real to an increasing number of Americans, this writer included.

It is as if they insist everyone right-handed should be forced to write left-handed, and everyone left-handed are now the only source for truth.

While I am left-handed, identity epistemology (truth is understood through truthful beingnesses, like blackness or homosexual, not whiteness or heterosexual), is nonsensical.

It is one thing for them to believe right-handed people should write left-handed and left-handed people are the true source for truth, just by being left-handed, but it is another thing to win mass mailer elections so they can inflict that policy on the majority of human beings that don’t want to sign up for their anti-American, anti-human program.

Their pathological view of the world has turned them into violent zealots who believe they are doing the “good people” a “good thing” using any means, including mass mailer election fraud, to destroy the evil outside their “left-handed people are now the only source for truth” world.

Their growing inability to see the other as anything but an existential threat to their sense of righteous indignation is making them blind to simple power realities that are setting them up for a spectacular defeat. This is assuming they keep pushing their policies as hard as they have been.

One thing not understood by progressives is that perception eventually overcomes slogans when perception becomes too difficult to ignore. While more and more Americans are becoming painfully aware of the true criminal insanity of the Progressive State dream, far too many still think the Democrats are just the party of the disenfranchised and “a woman’s right to choose.”

Abortion and anti-white racism keep the party afloat.

The pain being inflicted on Americans means the Progressives must protect themselves from the voters. This is where the mass mailer machines come in. While they need the mass mailer machine to insulate them from a real voter revolt, its creation could be the source of their demise.

So long as the policies of mass mailer elected governments do not inflict too great of a pain on too many people that can also find each other, a content people will pay little attention to accusations of fraud.

But when policies harm too many people, that mass mailer machine is an open wound.

It gives your enemies, especially we Americans, the power to charge you with disenfranchisement not because of documented “fraud” but because the whole complexity of the system creates zero confidence in its legitimization.

Its “legitimization” is based on complex technical assertions the layman (which includes me) must take at face value from “experts” we no longer have any confidence in because their policies, by our perception, are so violently anti-human.

The more your policies perceptively harm the governed, the more the mere convoluted nature of your mass mailer system will create real, profound perceptions of disenfranchisement. Where your policies align with the vast majority, or at least do not perceptively directly threaten the peace of the vast majority, your mass mailer system will be tolerated, for it makes it convenient for people to vote.

We do not question automatic convenience unless and until it creates pain.

The convoluted mechanisms involved in mass mailer elections create legitimate opportunities for your opponents to doubt the validity of the overall system.

Mass mailer election entanglements are rife with opportunities for fraud. Every change of custody, every extended day, before and after election day, creates new opportunities for fraud. This is basic common sense, it needs no technological understanding, nor is there a technology that can overcome this fact.

When the state wins with mass mailer votes, but delivers suffering afterwards, the mass mailer system will become the symbol of your illegitimacy. It will be an easy monster to create, especially because it’s far more real than the monster you rode to power, the white devil.

The mass mailer ballot will become the symbol of your tyranny and your illegitimacy as one who rules through the approval of the people.

You rule through the approval of technical veils disguised as elections.

The only way you can stop this growing narrative is to violate our American rights even harder than you already have, which will only make your targets more determined to stop you, eventually by violence. This would be a bad outcome for everyone, so if it ends here, in violence, we Americans have already failed.

In addition to causing your targets more pain, you will also expand the number of people who now directly experience the pain of your policies. These people will be the families and friends of your targets who have never quite believed you are the anti-American Progressive that you truly are.

If their voting district is in a mass mailer district, they already have an easy symbol of your tyranny to rally others around, a real devil, with real devil powers, created by the Progressive State to overthrow the American Republic from within.

FURTHER RESOURCES:

Voting by Mail Dates Back to America’s Earliest Years. Here’s How it Changed – Olivia Waxman – Time Magazine

A Timeline of Mail-in Voting – We Vote

How to Steal an Election: Mail in Ballots – PragerU

Let’s review. California: – Kyle Becker (outlines the “laws” that enable cheating in California elections)

Originally published May 29, 2026 for our weekly Issue of Mindful Intelligence Advisor.  Subscribe to get weekly issues.

By Paul Gordon Collier, Editor

“Maybe you do not care much about the future of the Republican Party. You should. Conservatives will always be with us. If conservatives become convinced that they cannot win democratically, they will not abandon conservatism. They will reject democracy.” – David Frum, Trumpocracy: The Corruption of the American Republic

“Hold on, my friends, to the Constitution and to the Republic for which it stands. Miracles do not cluster and what has happened once in 6,000 years, may not happen again. Hold on to the Constitution, for if the American Constitution should fail, there will be anarchy throughout the world.” – Daniel Webster

INTRODUCTION

The month of May featured the full fallout of the April 29, 2026, ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court on the Voting Rights Act. Numerous states held primaries in the month of May as well. Between these two storylines, Election 2026 was easily the top trending news tag of May.

This Deep Dive looks at election 2026 happenings this month, starting with the SCOTUS ruling fallout, and an analysis of the key races and trends we should be looking at in the November 2026 elections.

1. GERRYMANDERING WARS

As of right now, the Republicans are theoretically up about 9 seats in the gerrymandering wars, but that’s subject to more legal battles being played out over the next two months. The momentum is still with the Republicans in the gerrymandering wars, and that is entirely thanks to the SCOTUS ruling at the end of April 2026.

1. HOW WE GOT HERE – On April 29, 2026, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that race-created voting districts were unconstitutional. The ruling was 6-3. It set off a firestorm of gerrymandering wars that had begun before the ruling.

The Democrats look poised to at least neutralize any efforts by the Republicans to gerrymander their way to victory, and then the SCOTUS ruling dropped. After this ruling, the Democrats find themselves behind the curve, but a couple recent rulings might rejuvenate their chances.

2. LATEST – Since the ruling, Republicans have attempted to pass new districts with some successes and some failures, while Democrats met with one major defeat in Virginia. Democrats have less gerrymandering margins than Republicans do. While that gap existed before the ruling, the Republicans’ opportunities for gerrymandering greatly increased AFTER the ruling, while the Democrats’ opportunities were greatly diminished.

2.1. ALABAMA – Alabama’s new GOP-created map was struck down by a Federal Court. Their arguments for doing so seem to directly contradict the SCOTUS ruling. They ruled the law does not explicitly justify the creation of black districts, nor that the creation of a black district is a justified remedy to come into compliance with the Voter Rights Act.

Nevertheless, the new map is suspended until SCOTUS rules. It is unclear if they will rule in time for the November 2026 election.

2.2. CALIFORNIA – The Democrats have successfully passed new gerrymandering maps after a referendum in 2025 that is unaffected by the SCOTUS ruling. This means the Democrats will gain a plus six seat advantage in the 2026 elections from California alone.

2.3. FLORIDA – The Republicans passed a new congressional map expected to net four seats for the GOP. A Florida Judge struck down an effort to block the new map, making it more likely it will be in effect for the November 2026 election.

2.4. LOUISIANA – Republican Governor Jeff Landy used an executive order to postpone congressional primaries to allow the legislature to create a new map.

2.5. MISSOURI – The Republicans have passed a new map that doesn’t appear to increase GOP seats by more than one, but it increases safe GOP seats. It was recently approved by the State Supreme Court.

2.6. NEW YORK – Efforts by the Democrats to get rid of one GOP seat were struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court, preserving the seat for the GOP in 2026, at least.

2.7. NORTH CAROLINA – The GOP’s new map is now firmly in place for 2026, giving the GOP one more seat.

2.8. OHIO – The Republican’s new map here will most likely produce two GOP seats. A major federal challenge to the map was withdrawn in 2026.

2.9. SOUTH CAROLINA – While the GOP State House passed a new map that would have eliminated the one “black district” left in the state, the Senate failed to pass it thanks to 12 GOP State Senators, all of which now have a bullseye on them for their next primary.

2.10. TENNESSEE – The Republicans gain one seat in Tennessee. While the map still faces legal challenges, it is unlikely to be altered before the November 2026 election.

2.11. TEXAS – After SCOTUS upheld Texas’ new map, the GOP expects to gain 5 seats in Texas, which also includes the elimination of two far-left progressive firebrands, Al Green and Jasmine Crockett.

2.12. VIRGINIA – What began with great promise for the Democrats has ended with no gain whatsoever in their gerrymandering war bid.

While they were successful in passing a new map through the legislature and through popular referendum, their seeming disregard for procedure made it all but impossible for the state’s highest court to affirm it.

The Democrats hoped to gain four seats through their redrawn map.

1. MAY’S ELECTION RESULTS

These are the bellwether results of key primary races in the month of May.

1. HOUSE PRIMARIES

1.1. KENTUCKY – Donald Trump’s greatest GOP detractor in the U.S. House will not be coming back in 2027. Thomas Massie lost his re-election bid to his Trump-endorsed challenger Ed Gallrein. Massie represents numerous Trump opponents in the GOP who faced a reckoning in their own party’s primary.

1.2. GEORGIA – Donald Trump stayed out of the 10^th district U.S. House race in Georgia. It is an open seat this year after incumbent Mike Collins chose to run for the U.S. Senate, leaving his office behind.

1.3. PENNSYLVANIA – The Democratic Governor of PA, Josh Shapiro, saw a number of the candidates he backed decisively win their primaries.  He focused on GOP-held seats that are vulnerable, meaning the party faithfully trusted his choices to beat Republican incumbents.

1.4. TEXAS – The Democrat who likes to submit impeachment papers against President Trump, Al Green, will not be returning to congress in 2027. He lost his primary bid decisively.

2. SENATE PRIMARIES

2.1. ALABAMA – The GOP still has no nominee in Alabama to replace incumbent Senator Tommy Tuberville, who is now running for governor. No candidate achieved a 50% majority, meaning a runoff election will happen June 16, 2026. The two top vote-getters were Barry Moore, with 39.2% of the vote, and Jared Hudson, who secured 25.6% of the vote.

Barry Moore was endorsed by Trump in January, ahead of the May 19 primary. The latest poll shows a dead heat, with Hudson at 41% and Moore at 40%. 18% were undecided.

2.2. GEORGIA – The Democrat incumbent, John Ossoff, easily won his primary election having won unopposed. On the GOP side, Trump-endorsed Mike Collins failed to secure a majority win.

He scored first with 40.5% of the vote. Second place was Derek Dooley at 30.2%. The runoff election is scheduled for June 16. So far, Collins has maintained a lead as low as 5% and as high as 17%.

2.3. LOUISIANA – Another anti-Trump GOP Senator was sent packing. This one, Bill Cassidy, had voted to convict Trump during his first term. During Trump’s second term Cassidy continues to vote against Trump’s agenda.

No candidate secured a majority vote. Cassidy finished outside the top two, in third. The run-off is between Trump-endorsed Julia Letlow and State Treasurer John Fleming.

2.4. TEXAS – John Cornyn joined the growing list of the anti-Trump GOP that saw themselves rejected by the GOP electorate in the primaries. Cornyn lost to Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton by more than 30 points. The race was called five minutes after the polls were closed. Paxton was endorsed by Trump.

1. SENATE ANALYSIS

The key U.S. Senate races in the 2026 Midterms are clearly Georgia, Maine, Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio, and Texas. The Democrats hold two of these seats, the Republicans the other five. Georgia might be the bellwether of all the races, though Michigan might be a close second.

1. GEORGIA – Any hope the Democrats have of taking the Senate begins in Georgia. The Democratic incumbent, John Ossoff, is already in a purple state. Trump won Georgia by only 2.2 points in 2024. The GOP Primary runoff is in June, with the Trump-endorsed candidate favored to win.

The battleground for statewide Georgia is the suburbs, where issues like abortion, LGBTQ rights, and anti-immigration are favored by white suburban upper middle-class women. The Democrats’ cultural program appeals to white suburban women.

2. MAINE – The Maine U.S. Senate nomination of far-left and alleged antisemitic radical Graham Platner by the Democratic Party has moved this Republican-held seat from a toss-up to leans Republican.

The incumbent, Susan Collins, is considered a “RINO”, a Republican in name only, for consistently voting against the GOP agenda whenever her vote is needed most.

A hold here is merely to prevent the Democrats from holding a Senate majority.

3. MICHIGAN – The incumbent, Democrat Gary Peters, is retiring at the end of his term here. This is an open seat in a purple state. This is the best chance the GOP has to assure they hold a Senate majority.

The Republicans have all-but nominated former U.S. representative Mike Rogers, who faces minimal resistance in the primary field. On the Democrat side, there is a three-person race. In polling between Rogers and other democrats, he leads by 5-10 points.

4. NORTH CAROLINA – The GOP incumbent, Thom Tillis, announced he would not be running for re-election, allowing the former Democratic North Carolina Governor, Roy Cooper, to step in. He holds a 9–11-point lead over the GOP nominee, Michael Watley, the current RNC Chairman. This looks to be a Democratic pickup, though they will need more than this to take a majority.
5. OHIO – The GOP’s incumbent, Jon Husted, was appointed in 2025 to fill a vacancy. In the primary, he ran uncontested. He will face off against the Democratic nominee Sherrod Brown, who served in the U.S. Senate from 2007-2025. He won his primary with ease.

The main issue in Ohio appears to be healthcare, according to weekly polls. The polls consistently show Husted in the lead, but not by more than five points, and on average only two.

6. TEXAS – The GOP incumbent, John Cornyn, lost a decisive primary run-off to Trump endorsed Ken Paxton, the current Attorney General of Texas. Paxton will face off against James Talarico, a self-described “progressive Christian,” who defeated far-left firebrand Jasmine Crocket with ease in his primary.

Crocket is a U.S. House representative who will not be returning in 2027 because her district was eliminated by Texas’ new map.

Analysts put this race in leans GOP, but I believe this will be a secure seat for the GOP.

If there was any truth to the blue Texas hype, the GOP’s chances of holding the Senate would be slim to none.

1. HOUSE ANALYSIS

This analysis focuses on the key bellwether states for the 2026 U.S. Congressional midterm elections. They are listed in alphabetical order, though the state that should be first will be listed alphabetically last.

That state is Pennsylvania, where the Republicans must hold three vulnerable seats. Should the Democrats sweep all three, the chances for a GOP majority plummet.

This analysis focuses on vulnerable GOP seats. While there are vulnerable Democrat seats, the Republican-held ones represent more of a bellwether for how well the Republicans might do against the Democrats in those similarly contested seats.

Two underlying themes emerge in these races, the suburban white woman vote, and the popular candidate overcoming Democrat branding vote. The Democrats are playing on cultural issues where the suburban vote is at play, while offering moderate voices behind popular faces where the suburban vote is not at play.

Donald Trump may help you win in primaries, but in these purple districts, he’s at best a slight advantage to the GOP candidate, but mostly he is a slight impediment. Yet if the GOP candidate seeks to alienate themselves from Trump, they risk alienating their own GOP voters, who simply won’t show up.

1. ARIZONA – The Republicans hold two U.S. House seats in Arizona that are at risk of flipping to Democrat, the 1^st and the 6^th. In the 1^st district, incumbent David Schweikert’s resignation puts the seat at play in an already purple district. The 1^st district is in the category of leans Republican while the 6^th is a toss-up.

In the 6^th district, the GOP’s incumbent is Juan Ciscomani, who runs on a strong borders platform. The Democrats are hoping to defeat him by reaching white suburban women with progressive cultural issues like abortion and LGBTQ rights.

Of the two districts, they Democrats have the best chance to flip the 6^th district, though they have a contested field facing Ciscomani in the July 21 primaries.

2. CALIFORNIA – One Republican-held seat in California is at risk of flipping to the Democrats, the 22^nd District. In the 22^nd, Incumbent David Valadao is facing a more progressive district after redistricting efforts in 2025. Valadao is the last surviving Republican in the House that voted to impeach President Trump. The Democrats hold a slight edge in polls.
3. COLORADO – The 8^th District of Colorado was flipped from Democrat to Republican in 2024. The Democrats hope to flip it back in 2026. The primary is June 30, 2026. The incumbent is Gabe Evans, who is running mostly unopposed in his upcoming June primary. His Democrat challenger remains undetermined, with three people leading a packed field in the June primary.

There is little polling data, so given the closeness of the last election, this one is in the toss-up category.

4. MICHIGAN – There are two districts at risk of flipping to Democrat in 2026, the 7^th and 10^th districts. The primaries are August 4, 2026. The 7^th was flipped from Democrat to Republican in 2024, with Tom Barrett now representing the district for the Republicans.

The Republicans’ incumbent, John James, has chosen the race for Governor over U.S. congress, leaving the race open for challengers. There are no clear front runners on either side of what promises to be a toss-up race no matter who wins their party’s nomination.

5. NEBRASKA – The Republican incumbent of Nebraska’s 2^nd U.S. congressional district, Don Bacon, has retired, leaving an already blue-leaning district prime for Democrat picking. While polling is mostly within the margin for error, analysts generally rate this as a toss-up to leans Democrat.

While it is not a certain loss for the GOP, it remains a difficult challenge to hold on to with its growing suburban population.

6. NEW YORK – The New York Primary is June 24, 2026. One district presents an opportunity for Democrats to turn Republican seats blue. That district is the 17^th district, where incumbent Mike Lawler is running contested in his primary, but remains a heavy favorite to win.

The Democrats have a mixed field with three front-runners emerging. This district is mostly categorized by analysists as a toss-up or leans Republican.

7. PENNSLYVANIA – This is the bellwether state of the House races, and if there was a Senate Race it might well be a bellwether for Senate races too.

There are three GOP-held seats in PA at serious risk of flipping to Democrat, the 1^st, 7^th, and 10^th districts. The 10^th district race might be the bellwether race of the nation.

In all three races, the GOP incumbent will be facing an opponent endorsed by the Governor, Josh Shapiro. One of these, Janelle Stelson, almost won the 10^th district in 2024. She is a local celebrity pitching a moderate message and banking on her fame as a news reporter to carry her through.

The 7^th District was only recently flipped by Republican Ryan Mackenzie, He will be facing Shapiro-groomed Bob Brooks. Abortion and worker rights are the leading issues the Democrats hope to capture the suburban and working-class neighborhoods of the district.

This is my home district, which is becoming increasingly progressive as New Yorkers continue to move there.

The 1^st District, though, remains the best shot for the Democrats to flip a GOP seat, with incumbent Bob Harvey somehow surviving in a district that voted for Biden. As of right now it remains a toss-up to leans Republican.

The other two districts also lean Republican.

ASSESSMENT

In the U.S. Senate, the Democrats appear to be fighting an uphill battle. As of right now, the GOP is in a strong position to not only hold the Senate, but perhaps expand it by one or two.

When it comes to the U.S. House, all eyes should be on PA’s three vulnerable GOP seats in districts where the Democrats’ hoped-for winning strategy of 2026 is being played out.

Abortion and worker rights, in general, are the Democrats’ hopes for claiming these three districts, with the 7^th representing that balance the most.

The 10^th district, though, represents the power of celebrity to overcome branding, even if it is only local celebrity. As a Pennsylvanian, I’ve heard of Stelson. Her “fame” is probably statewide. If she fails to break through, this is a foreboding sign for the Democrats, whose brand might be heading towards terminal velocity. If she wins, there is still great power in celebrity after all.

Should the GOP hold all three seats, this bodes well for the other suburban-influenced districts. But if the Democrats were to sweep these three seats, this might assure they will retake the House in 2026.

The full fallout of the gerrymandering wars has yet to take effect, and there are still more primaries to go in bellwether states; Therefore, I would rate the outcome of the 2026 congressional election as a toss-up at this point, though that could change significantly if the GOP is able to secure a few more gerrymandering wins.

After the gerrymandering wars have settled, the amount of competitive House seats might fall to under 10, so the wars fought today could set the balance of power for the next decade to come.

Originally published May 8, 2026 for our weekly Issue of Mindful Intelligence Advisor.  Subscribe to get weekly issues.

Bellwether Report – Week Ending May 8., 2026

By Paul Gordon Collier, Editor

“Our children long for realistic maps of the future that they can be proud of. Where are the cartographers of human purpose?” – Carl Sagan

“The world can doubtless never be well known by theory: practice is absolutely necessary; but surely it is of great use to a young man, before he sets out for that country, full of mazes, windings, and turnings, to have at least a general map of it, made by some experienced traveler.” – Lord Chesterfield

INTRODUCTION

This past week has seen the fall-out of the Supreme Court Ruling on race-based gerrymandering begin to form the new reality of power in American politics going forward.

We chose this news story because it is not only a bellwether for the new American political reality of power, but also a bellwether for the debate that cannot be rationally, logically held, how essential is biological ethnic unity and commonality to human thriving?

Were we a species studied by a distant advanced species would they conclude the human must fundamentally organize around biological ethnic unity?

For the record, this writer strongly suspects the essential binding unity is in our shared presuppositions regarding the nature of valuing, being, and knowing (axiology, ontology, epistemology, respectively).

This topic deserves further inquiry, but I don’t want to get too far afield from this narrower focus, the race-based dynamic at play here that puts the “left” in the position of defending ethnic biological unity necessity.

This report is not about the debate, but about the dynamics of power being shifted here because of this ruling.

Race essentialism has a connotation of supremacism and inferiority that makes it an unfit term to use to describe what’s going on here, though semantically, it perfectly describes it.

For this reason, I will use the term race necessity (or race necessitarianism) to describe what’s going on here. While all race essentialists are also race necessatarians, not all race necessatarians are race essentialists.

Race necessitarianism is all I am “accusing” anyone here of, be they on the “left” or the “right.”

The “left” has risen to power in this country mostly under the claim it will end racism, which is race essentialism. But what it offered instead was race necessitarianism. It concealed this fact by changing the definition of race to simply mean being white in the western world.

So, they could continue to have NFL endzones dog whistle to leftists “End Whitey” whenever the endzones had signs that said, “end racism.”

Whatever the reality, the motte of the left is to be decidedly against both race essentialism AND race necessitarianism, whereas a significant minority of the right has more openly embraced race necessitarianism while claiming not to be race essentialists.

The bailey of the left is the belief the white devil invented evil, a decidedly race essentialist mindset.

With this issue, the right must now reject the notion of not only race essentialism (which this writer believes the overwhelming majority already do) but also race necessitarianism (which perhaps most of them do).

This isn’t a one-off battle that will force the right to engage with this position, then move on; this is the foreseeable future of American political reality.

This report will give you the basic facts of this developing story, as we know them so far, then an assessment of what’s going on at what I call the base of action level. That base of action will return us to race necessitarianism and the question of gerrymandering in and of itself.

We will close this report with recommendations, which will be given from the perspective of the Americanist. We deliver this report loosely following the Sitrep model.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The Supreme Court’s historic Louisiana v. Callais (April 29, 2026) ruling has redefined the terms of constitutional engagement at a foundational level.

The burden of proof to trigger Federal intervention in racial discrimination cases includes disproportionate outcomes. This means that any result that produces unequal results in proportion to population will justify discriminatory actions to assure proportional outcomes occur.

In drawing new voting districts, at all levels, from local to Federal, the Voting Rights Act was interpreted to allow race-based districts to be created to assure proportional racial outcomes in elections, at all levels of government. It not only allowed race-based districts, but it also mandated their creation.

Now, the new standard is PROOF of the intention to prevent other races from successfully running and winning elections, not simply the failure of the electorate to racially proportionally choose their representatives.

A key result of this is that Federal standards for drawing district maps are now no longer valid. All districts will be drawn by the bodies they represent. From the U.S. Congress to State Courts, the standards for district-drawing can be as many as there are districts, though no intentionally race-based districts can be created.

What’s at stake in this ruling boils down to political power. The results of this ruling are not certain, but as of right now the chances are fair to good that the Republicans will come out 5 to 13 seats ahead of the Democrats in the U.S. House gerrymandering wars.

This is only for the 2026 midterm elections.

Over the course of the next three years, Republicans will gain close to 200 state legislative seats in the South as a result of this decision.

The midterms are one thing, the Presidential election is another, and GOP gains through this ruling will only get deeper after many more Republican states finally have opportunities to act to change their districts.

The ruling invites gerrymandering war perpetuation at all levels of government for the foreseeable future, as every election will be as much about being able to draw the next round of district maps as executing policies (maybe even more so).

James Woodall, a former NAACP president in Georgia, was quoted by Stateline. He offered some encouragement to the progressives, suggesting there may still be some legal room to enforce the principles of the Voting Rights Act.

He also offered a sobering take on the new dynamic of race in this country following this ruling.

He declared, “Practically, what this now means is that Black voters equal Democrat. And in order for Black people to have political power, we will need to separate ourselves – and I hate to say this – we are going to have to separate ourselves practically from that assumption.”

The days of the black voter being a reliable Democrat in a reliable black district are over.

Race politics itself could be over, or at least significantly blunted. The Democrat Party, if it survives its inundation of anti-American progressivism, will have to treat the black voter like a human voter. The power of the white devil has been reduced, if not ended, if the black victim identity is no longer an effective political tool.

BACKGROUND

1. THE CAJUN FIGHT – In June of 2022, a Federal Judge ruled the 2022 Louisiana District Map was unconstitutional because it did not have enough black districts to assure proportional black representation.

In 2023, Louisiana created SB8, a second black majority district, to meet the de facto racial quota. In early 2024, a class action suit was filed from plaintiffs who are referred to as the Callais plaintiffs. They claim the racially created district violates their 14^th Amendment Rights.

The plaintiffs are looking at two recent rulings that began to question the constitutionality of race-based districts. One was Alexander v. South Carolina NAACP (2024; upholding a map) and Allen v. Milligan (2023; VRA enforcement in Alabama),

In November of 2024 another case was joined with this case, assuring this case would be the bellwether for voting district standards for decades to come.

2. THE RULING – By a 6-3 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the standard for determining racial discrimination in voting is not in the results, but in the proof the results were intentionally manipulated. Failure to show more than disproportionate outcomes will result in no relief from the courts.

Justice Alito wrote for the majority. He wrote, “Held:  Because the Voting Rights Act did not require Louisiana to create an additional majority-minority district, no compelling interest justified the State’s use of race in creating SB8, and that map is an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.  Pp. 17–36. (a) The Constitution almost never permits a State to discriminate on the basis of race, and such discrimination triggers strict scrutiny.

“Section 2(b) establishes that a violation occurs when political processes are ‘not equally open to participation by’ members of a racial group ‘in that [they] have less opportunity than other members of the electorate to . . . elect representatives of their choice.’

“The key concept is ‘less opportunity than other members of the electorate,’ which sets a baseline against which to assess the opportunity of minority voters.  That baseline—the opportunity that any given group of voters has to elect their candidate of choice—depends on the voting preferences of other voters in the district. 

“For example, in a district where most voters prefer Democratic candidates, a Republican voter in that district will have a low chance of securing the election of his or her preferred candidate.  The roster of voters who end up in a given district depends, in turn, on the districting criteria the State uses to draw a legislative map.

 “Thus, the ‘opportunity’ of these ‘members of the electorate’ to contribute their votes to a winning cause is whatever opportunity results from the application of the State’s combination of permissible districting criteria.

That is what a randomly selected individual voter and group of voters can expect regarding their opportunity to elect their preferred candidate. Under §2, a minority voter is entitled to nothing less and nothing more.”

Justice Kagan wrote the dissent. In her dissent, racial voting to assure your representatives are the same race as you is more important than assuring Americans don’t vote based on race. If race is more essential than the political issues, than what is the legitimization of that political system at all?

Her dissent reflects the progressive worldview that race is essential to the self and having the self’s race represent them is more essential than establishing a rule of law standard that could be called “color blind.”

Continuing to perpetuate racial sectarianism is a sacrifice Kagan is willing to have us all pay, for the good of race-driven politics.

She asserted, “Even if the State has deprived those citizens (but not their majority neighbors) of all opportunity to ‘elect representatives of their choice,’ the law will not protect them.

“…The majority has made its own assessment of current needs… and concluded that preventing racial vote dilution does not count among them.  So once again, ‘in the absence of proof of intentional discrimination,’ the right to vote gives minority citizens ‘nothing more than the right to cast meaningless ballots.’ 

“The consequences are likely to be far-reaching and grave. Today’s decision renders Section 2 all but a dead letter.  In the States where that law continues to matter—the States still marked by residential segregation and racially polarized voting—minority voters can now be cracked out of the electoral process.”

3. THE IMMEDIATE FALLOUT – Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry suspended six U.S. House elections so the legislature would be able to draw a new map eliminating the two black districts. This move was challenged in the courts by civil rights groups.

This triggered an expedited judgment request by the “non-African” plaintiffs in Callais, who argued their rights would be violated if the elections went through with the unconstitutional districts. On May 5, 2026, the judgment was fast-tracked by Justice Samuel Alito. This created opportunities for a few Republican states to move before the midterm elections to change district maps in their favor.

Alito’s decision has been challenged by black voters in the districts being eliminated. In addition to Louisiana, South Carolina, Alabama, and Tennessee are now looking to draw new district maps as well in special legislative sessions.

Georgia MIGHT have a path to redraw some maps, but that path is less clear than the others mentioned.

UPDATE: Tennessee has already passed a new districting bill, which triggered a physical altercation in the legislature.

CURRENT SITUATION

Now that the legal eagles have had time to digest the new reality of power, Republicans and Democrats are looking for ways to maximize opportunity (for the GOP) and minimize harm (for the DNC). Only a handful of GOP states can move to take advantage of this ruling before the midterm elections.

Underneath the national drama are 50 state dramas and hundreds of local dramas being played out across America even as we create this report.

The fundamental question, the constitutionality of “gerrymandering” at all, has yet to be addressed, and both sides seem more than content to preserve that political weapon for themselves.

Republicans are looking for cheap, easy ways to eliminate black (and thus Democrat) districts. One way is to reinstate versions of existing maps with minor edits. Some GOP states have laws that allow for off-cycle redraws, which would allow for state and local districts to be redrawn before the 2026 midterms.

With SCOTUS effectively ruling that partisan gerrymandering (within reason) is ok, Map Makers are mostly only constrained by their imaginations when it comes to creating political advantage for the party in power.

Democrat states are looking to pass state laws protecting their state from the SCOTUS ruling, though it is not certain this path will be fruitful. The next legal challenge might come from these states, where race-based districts were not ordered or approved by the Federal government.

ASSESSMENT

The initial unfolding of the new political reality of power suggests the rise of the map maker, the one who draws the maps of the new districts, the constantly new districts, perhaps after each switch of party in power.

This is not a predictive analysis, rather, this seems to be the foregone conclusion, and the new reality of power they are operating under.

District maps are now drawn by the powers they represent, with the only Federal guidance being this; you can’t use disproportionate outcomes to justify the creating of a race-based district. Gerrymandering as a practice has been given even more free rein than it did before.

Race-based politics has taken a serious hit, but the check is in the mail for that effect, as the activist power of the left is existentially formed around the white devil narrative. Without the white devil, who can dismantle an argument with the charge, “but you’re a white male!”

The dissent by Kagen shows the fundamental divide between Americanists and progressives. Americans seek a world where our merits, our talents, and our integrity, are the central determiners of our fate, though not the sole determiner (for there is grace, mercy, and charity as well).

Progressives see a world where discrimination based on race in and of itself is not an existential issue, for their rule of law is based on interpreting the constitution through the lens of social justice.

We have described social justice in the past as being a de facto caste system, where the circumstance you are born into determines your value to society, and your role.

Kagen demonstrates this by assuming a minority black community in a white dominant community could not be equally divided politically as that white community, and that the central unity in that political action was not around race but around values, principles, and standards.

If Kagen is right, America is not a legitimate power, for it is built on the assumption that a people can be united around an idea alone, not a biological unity necessity. This, in part, is why American slavery became so vicious, for its people had to make the black man something less than human.

But it is also why that spirit couldn’t hold in a land whose very government was built on the spirit that kills such assumptions.

Kagen reveals a mind incapable of seeing the black race, or any race, as anything but a borg collective of samethink predetermined politically by the melanin levels in their skin. Kagen is a race necessitarian, at the very least, and an anti-Americanist at her core.

For Kagen, she recognizes that the shift in standards from a burden of outcome to a burden of intent fundamentally guts not only the Voting Rights Act’s Section 2, but the heart of race-politicking progressive power.

Now that that black race cannot simply be an easily contained collective, progressives will have to address the individual needs of individual blacks, who will, by necessity, want to find a political opportunity for power, which can now only be found outside of racial necessity.

Immediately, the stage is set for the action that could kill race politics in America, the SCOTUS gerrymandering decision, becoming the accelerant of that fire in the short-term as GOP-held districts prepare to cull the black districts from their lands.

1. NOTE: Be sure to read our May 2026 MIA Report on May 29 when we will offer our Predictive Analysis in our Situation Report.

The fallout of this ruling is sure to be part of that report, for it has the likely potential of fundamentally altering American political gamesmanship at a time when AI is already doing similar work across multiple institutions.

RECOMMENDATIONS

There are Americanists in all walks of life, across all biological, socio-cultural, and even sacred lines. So, we presume there are Americanists in government, in political parties, and in activist groups.

What we are recommending can be implemented, or initiated, in various ways according to the context of the institution you as an American find yourself in.

Where you have the power, these are the goals we recommend your individual action contribute towards making happen.

We believe there are two fronts that must be pursued at the same time, challenging partisan gerrymandering and creating American political parties.

The first one is to challenge the notion of partisan gerrymandering in the first place. This is a principle that is anathema to the American spirit.

While we recognize mapping districts is complex, and that there are no neat, cut and dry solutions, having little to no standards nationally seems anti-thetical to individual-based politics. This is Americanism versus social politics, progressivism (and apparently US conservatism as well).

While relying primarily on geographical contiguity in and of itself cannot be the only standard for drawing just districts, we suggest it becomes the heavily favored outcome. Where exceptions become the rule, as they do today, tribal partisanship takes the place of free and open political discourse, development, and governance.

Tribal partisanship is social justice.

The parties become identified by their tribe, not their ideas. The ideas are the ones that give your tribe coercive advantage over other tribes, nothing more.

The individual dies under the pressure of not voting against his tribe’s own interests, even if their “useful” ideas don’t align with the individual’s own self-stewarded ones.

The right’s willingness to use gerrymandering for its own tribal ends is as anti-American, by our standards, as the left’s willingness to use gerrymandering to do the same, even if it means fueling racial partisanship.

Where local and state laws can be changed to create district mapping standards more aligned with Americanism, this should be done. Where you have the power to make this happen, through appeal or as a government representative, do so.

Nationally, we should move to pass an amendment that would create a national district map standard aligned with individual liberty, not tribalism, be it social justice or US conservatism.

The second front is far more difficult, and one we’ve been calling on for a while now, the creation of American political parties that reflect the “natural” political divide of an American people.

We say this because neither major party represents American individual liberty. The Democrats are progressives, a nation born from within America, but ultimately in disagreement with her.

The Republicans are Conservative US, not America. They’re much closer to Americanism than the progressives, but they’re not quite there. They sacrifice liberty for the sake of American “Greatness,” for instance.

We argue the conservatives are mostly within a social justice mindset, it’s just that their social classes are defined by being born and raised “American.”

The paths those thoughts lead to sometimes create real white devils, but mostly they create “progressives” as afraid of seeing their ideas be rejected consensually by the public as progressives are.

These US Conservatives are multi-ethnic and are mostly more Americanist in their race politics views than not, though a significant minority are race necessitarians, and a much smaller minority are race essentialists. From that group, there be real white devils for the progressives to find and amplify.

Among these groups are yet Americans within, people who just can’t yet see how anti-American their own parties are.

Outside of these groups, most Americans don’t know who their fellow Americans are. They might assume there are too few left, or they may have given up altogether.

We believe the number of Americans in this country is 60% or more, that when people confront the reality of power difference between no American constitutional protections under progressive standards of governance and American rule of law, they will run back to American rule of law. Let us hope they don’t realize this before running back is no longer an option.

So far, we have yet to see any serious new American political party grass-roots efforts emerging. We have the domain Americanist.Party, as one suggested placeholder for such a movement.

We believe it must come from one central party that recognizes its goal is to vanquish the Democrats and Republicans, then become 2-3 parties that reflect the natural divisions of a people willing to see their ideas die in the hearts of their neighbors consensually.

We believe the natural divisions of political power outside of tribalism, are to fetishize the weak to vanquish the strong or fetishize the strong to vanquish the weak. The party that rises through fetishizing the weak will simply redefine the strong in fact as still being the weak in spirit, like progressives do when they gain power today.

This is what the claim of “systemic racism” creates, a de facto strong class that is still spiritually weak. This is a job that can never be completed, lest the champion of the weak lose its purpose, its justification for power.

Within Americanism, this type of political exploitation can be contained so that even when one party dominates the other, the people outside of political power have no existential threat from it in terms of their own capacity to pursue being a self-stewarded individual.

This is America’s superpower, the home of the brave power, the power to resist violence when you fairly lose or even when you fear you MIGHT fairly lose.

This spirit has been seen in traces throughout known human history, from China to Rome to Aksum, but never has a land like ours had such an opportunity to let that superpower thrive.

Let us hope and pray and work to overcome the spirits, the factions that seek in their ignorance to end that superpower either for the good of the whole or the good of being great.

FURTHER RESOURCES:

One Person, One Vote: A Surprising History of Gerrymandering in America – Nick Seabrook

Gerrymandering in America – Michael Latner, Charles Anthony Smith, Anthony J. McGann

Gerrymandering: The Politics of Redistricting in the United States – Stephen K. Medvic