Skip to main content

Sen. Warnock urges Democrats to investigate officials who redrew maps

U.S. Sen. Raphael Warnock, D-Ga., departs from the Senate chamber during a vote in the U.S. Capitol Building on July 13, 2026, in Washington, D.C. Senators faced questions from reporters after two weeks of recess and being in their home states. (Finn Gomez/Getty Images)

(WASHINGTON) — Senator Raphael Warnock, D-Ga, is calling for Democrats to investigate officials who he says have “manipulated their maps to silence the voices of Black voters,” as soon as they flip the House or Senate in the midterms.

In the plan, first reviewed by ABC News, Warnock said, “Here is what Democrats must do as soon as we regain power: investigate craven politicians, ban partisan gerrymandering, stop billionaires from buying our elections, expand our democracy and guarantee the right to vote for all Americans.”

Warnock has not ruled out a run for the White House in 2028. That possibility comes as roughly a third of the Congressional Black Caucus risks losing its seats before 2028, with GOP-led Southern legislatures redrawing maps after the Supreme Court’s Louisiana v. Callais ruling gutted Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.

In Louisiana, where Black residents make up roughly one-third of the population, a federal court had found that a post-2020 congressional map with only one majority-Black district likely diluted Black voting power. The legislature responded by drawing a second majority-Black district as courts had required in similar circumstances.

Justice Samuel Alito, who authored the Supreme Court opinion, which said that states only violate the Voting Rights Act when “evidence supports a strong inference that the State intentionally drew its districts to afford minority voters less opportunity because of their race.”

Republicans have argued that they are redrawing congressional maps to comply with the Supreme Court or to remedy unfairly-drawn districts, and that the districts that could be changed may still elect Black representatives to Congress.

Calling for officials who he says have engaged in gerrymandering to decimate minority voices is a position Warnock hasn’t called for until now, and he said in a phone interview with ABC News that the Callais decision was an “inflection point” for him to do so.

“A Democratic majority in either chamber must immediately investigate these officials, including through Congressional hearings, document requests, depositions, testimony, and, if necessary, subpoenas,” Warnock’s plan states. “We must analyze their statements, actions, and contributions to determine if there is any evidence that they broke any laws in their race to gerrymander and silence Black voices.”

Asked whether Democrats who’ve engaged in partisan gerrymandering — in California, for example — should face investigation, Warnock said that the state’s redistricting came in direct response to President Donald Trump pushing Texas to gerrymander five seats.

“There’s a significant difference between that and an open process in which Californians got to vote,” Warnock said. “This was not done in a smoky, dark room. They had a referendum. Again, if I had my druthers, there would be no gerrymandering.”

“There are only 22 districts out of 435 in this country in which a Democrat or a Republican could win the seat. I’m a Democrat. I think that’s a sad state of affairs,” Warnock added.

Warnock said that he’s been pushing his party to prioritize voting rights since he was first elected. In 2021, during negotiations over the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, Warnock urged then-President Joe Biden in a phone call that legislative action on voting rights should be prioritized alongside the package.

Warnock said he tried to convince former Democratic Sens. Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema to amend the filibuster so the party could pass voting rights legislation four years ago, arguing voting rights mattered more than a procedural rule.

“I said to my caucus then, as the newcomer, that I was afraid that if we don’t do something … we would cross a Rubicon in this country that we wouldn’t be able to get back,” Warnock said. “I said that then, and sadly, it didn’t get done.”

Looking ahead, Warnock said if Democrats flip even just one chamber, the party should break up pieces of the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, and “force everybody to vote on it.”

 

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

Judge in Don Lemon indictment asks to see grand jury records, adding to growing scrutiny of Justice Department cases

By CNN
(CNN) — A federal judge in Minnesota will probe this week whether grounds exist to toss the Justice Department’s case against journalist Don Lemon. It’s the latest example of judges’ growing skepticism of whether the department is behaving ethically behind closed doors in grand jury proceedings.Judges across the country have signaled they are willing to give far less deference to federal prosecutors than in previous administrations and have raised concerns about DOJ’s apparent abandonment of regular practices.Federal judges in Wyoming, Illinois and Virginia have either thrown out charges or seriously admonished federal prosecutors for missteps in front of the grand jury. The botched grand jury presentments have prompted a historical review of cases in Chicago and, in some courts, new rules requiring defendants to be notified when a grand jury declines to indict.On August 18, Minnesota federal Judge Laura Provinzino issued a short but extraordinary order demanding the Justice Department provide her a wide swath of grand jury materials related to Lemon and his co-defendants, including presentations made by prosecutors and case agents, and the totality of communications prosecutors had with grand jurors resulting in their indictments.Provinzino set a Tuesday deadline to provide her with the presentation by federal prosecutors and case agents related to grand juries empaneled in January and February. Further, Provinzino told DOJ to provide any introduction, legal instructions, witness testimony, closing arguments, and answers to questions from grand jurors.Lemon’s team has aggressively pursued obtaining grand jury materials and had asked for either grand jury records to be provided to the defense or, at a minimum, reviewed by the judge privately, citing “irregularities” in the grand jury that resulted in his indictment.“There is substantial evidence of grand-jury irregularities in this case,” Lemon’s team wrote in a recent filing.“Multiple judges, including at the Eighth Circuit, found there was no probable cause to charge Lemon” and his co-defendant Georgia Fort, the filing said.Mark Wolf, a former Massachusetts District Court judge and federal prosecutor, said it is rare for defense attorneys to ask for grand jury transcripts in federal court. It is even more rare that judges grant the motions, he said.“There is a high bar to getting grand jury materials,” Wolf said. “You have to have some direct or circumstantial evidence that there has been some defect in the grand jury proceeding.”In her two-page order, Provinzino wrote that she weighed the necessity of maintaining grand jury secrecy against whether grounds may exist to dismiss the case due to a “matter that occurred before the grand jury.”She did not say she had already found evidence of any misconduct.The Justice Department’s initial attempt to charge Lemon in January for appearing alongside protestors who disrupted a church service in St. Paul, Minnesota, was rejected by a federal magistrate judge, which “enraged” then Attorney General Pam Bondi, according to a source who spoke to CNN at the time.Lemon, a former CNN anchor, was later indicted by a grand jury along with several other defendants, including independent journalist Georgia Fort. Lemon has been charged with conspiring to violate someone’s constitutional rights and violating the FACE Act, which prohibits the use of force or threats to intentionally interfere with someone expressing their First Amendment right to practice religion.Lemon has pleaded not guilty to both charges. His team has aggressively pursued obtaining grand jury materials throughout the case, and earlier this month filed a motion to dismiss the case altogether.Justice Department losing credibilityWolf told CNN he does not believe the Justice Department’s credibility remains intact.“For good reasons, the Department of Justice’s reputation with judges generally has been injured,” Wolf said.In Chicago, defense attorneys urged Judge April Perry to release grand jury transcripts in the highly publicized case against protestors at an ICE detention facility outside the city.After reviewing those transcripts, Perry found federal prosecutors engaged in inappropriate actions, such as interacting with grand jurors outside the proceeding, ordering some jurors to leave in another hearing, and “vouching” to the grand jurors.Vouching is a practice where prosecutors present their own reputation while delivering their case to a grand jury. It is forbidden in grand jury proceedings because the practice effectively asks jurors to trust the prosecutor personally rather than only on the merits of evidence.“I have never seen the types of prosecutorial behavior before a grand jury that I saw in those transcripts,” Judge Perry said during a May 21 hearing.US Attorney Andrew Boutros then dropped the case against the protestors. Later, after reviewing the prosecutor’s conduct, Boutros opted to drop at least two more criminal cases, ordered a historical review of more than 100 grand jury transcripts, and launched reforms such as more training on grand jury presentations.“If I was a federal public defender or a private defense attorney, every case I get that’s indicted, I’m going to file a motion that is asking the judge to review the transcripts,” said Mike Fox, a current Cato Institute fellow and former Colorado public defender.“In my view, at this point, it doesn’t matter in which court it is, doesn’t matter if I have binding case law,” Fox said. “Every single case, the defense attorney should be filing, and the judge should be inquiring.”In May, a panel of three federal judges in Wyoming dismissed felony drug and gun indictments against nine defendants after the judges found the acting Wyoming US Attorney referred to defendants as “bad guys,” and “murderers,” and handed out business cards to jurors outside of the proceeding.Prosecutors opted not to appeal the judges’ order. Later, Wyoming federal prosecutors empaneled a new grand jury which issued a new indictment. The case remains ongoing.Fox believes the remedy is a more engaged judiciary where judges routinely witness grand jury proceedings.The current law doesn’t require judges to listen to proceedings, but some courts are issuing new local rules to ensure greater oversight. This spring, the Northern District of Illinois, where Boutros is US Attorney, enacted a rule requiring grand juries to alert a magistrate judge when a grand jury fails to issue an indictment.A spokesperson for the Justice Department told CNN in an email the executive office of the US Attorney provides training for prosecutors which includes grand jury practice.“On rare occasions where there is an issue, as noted in our Chicago US Attorney’s office, we took immediate corrective action and provided renewed, in-depth instruction on ethics and grand jury practice,” the spokesperson wrote.“Our US Attorneys will always follow the law and prosecute cases without fear or favor. Nobody is above the law, regardless of political affiliation. Beyond that, we don’t comment on pending litigation.”Grand jury presentments in the spotlight last yearLast fall, in the most high-profile and politically charged example of a problematic grand jury presentment, then-interim US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, Lindsey Halligan, took a proposed indictment against former FBI Director James Comey through a grand jury on her own. A magistrate judge in Alexandria, Virginia, reviewed the transcript and found Halligan may have incorrectly presented the law to the grand jury. The judge called the debacle “profound investigative missteps … to potentially undermine the integrity of the grand jury proceeding.”Halligan later admitted to a judge the grand jury hadn’t supported the initial version of the proposed indictment of Comey, and the full grand jury hadn’t signed off on the final charging document. That Comey case was dismissed for a separate reason, when a federal district judge determined Halligan wasn’t serving as a legitimate prosecutor. The Justice Department is appealing.But the grand jury handling in the Comey case and other cases continues to hover over prosecutors.Comey’s defense team, for instance, is attempting to pry into grand jury records in the separate, newer case against him, out of Eastern North Carolina. He is charged there with threatening the president by posting on social media a photo of the numbers “8647” written in seashells on a beach.The phrase 86 is sometimes used to say nix or get rid of something. Trump is the 47th president. Comey has denied wrongdoing in the case.“The highly irregular procedures that led to the indictment create a significant risk that the government misrepresented key issues of fact and law to the grand jury,” Comey’s lawyers wrote in a recent court filing, citing federal searches of Comey that they question.If Comey’s defense cannot gain access to the grand jury transcript, they at least want a judge to look at it to check the Justice Department’s work.Wolf said he is deeply troubled by the Justice Department’s recent actions and told CNN he believes it shows the American people that the department will use the law for partisan purposes.“It sends a message that a Department of Justice that should institutionalize our ideal of equal justice under law is not doing that,” Wolf said. “And that means anybody is vulnerable.”The-CNN-Wire™ & © 2026 Cable News Network, Inc., a Warner Bros. Discovery Company. All rights reserved.
Read Next Story

Related Stories

Latest News
A medida que se acercan las elecciones, Netanyahu presenta a Turquía como el nuevo enemigo de Israel
1 hour ago

A medida que se acercan las elecciones, Netanyahu presenta a Turquía como el nuevo enemigo de Israel

¿Por qué el francés se ha convertido en un punto conflictivo en la disputa comercial entre Canadá y EE.UU.?

A Black man once sentenced to death for murder fights for freedom after discovering his attorney defended the Ku Klux Klan

Michael Jordan’s ‘Last Dance’ 1998 Finals jersey could sell for over $10 million

EE.UU. afirma que tomará medidas enérgicas contra los países que hacen negocios con Irán. ¿Quién compra petróleo iraní?