The Brief

A major redistricting case returning to the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday could not only determine the fate of the federal Voting Rights Act, but also unlock a path for Republicans to pick up a slew of additional congressional seats.

If the high court overturns the act's Section 2 — a provision that bans racial discrimination in voting — GOP-controlled states could redraw at least 19 more voting districts for the House of Representatives in favor of Republicans, according to a recent report by the voting rights advocacy groups Black Voters Matter Fund and Fair Fight Action.

And depending on when the court rules in the case, known as Louisiana v. Callais, some number of the seats could be redistricted prior to next year's midterm election.

The analysis comes as President Donald Trump continues to lead a GOP push for new maps in Texas, Missouri, North Carolina and other states that could help Republicans preserve their slim House majority after the 2026 election.

The GOP effort could be bolstered by a Supreme Court ruling that eliminates longstanding Section 2 protections against the dilution of the collective power of racial minority voters.

Many of the landmark law's supporters fear such an outcome after the conservative-majority court didn't rule last term on the Louisiana case, and instead scheduled a rare second round of oral arguments, which is expected to focus on the constitutionality of Section 2's redistricting requirements.

A ruling gutting Section 2 could have a cascading effect on congressional maps in mostly Southern states where Republicans either control both legislative chambers and the governor's office or have a veto-proof majority in the legislature — and where voting is racially polarized, with Black voters tending to vote Democratic and white voters tending to vote Republican.

If mapmakers in those states are no longer required under Section 2 to draw districts where racial minority voters have a realistic opportunity of electing their preferred candidate, Louisiana, Florida, Georgia, Missouri, North Carolina and Texas could end up with fewer Democratic representatives in Congress. Alabama, Mississippi, South Carolina and Tennessee could lose all of theirs, the report finds.

As much as 30% of the Congressional Black Caucus and 11% of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus could also be lost.

It all leads to a possibility of Republicans cementing one-party control of the House for at least a generation, says Cliff Albright, co-founder and executive director of Black Voters Matter Fund.

Demonstrators hold signs and wear shirts for Black Voters Matter Fund outside the Supreme Court on Wednesday.

(

Claire Harbage

/

NPR

)

"Part of the point that we're trying to make with this report is that what happens in the South doesn't just stay in the South," Albright adds. "This racial gerrymandering has the ability to not just disempower, disenfranchise Black voters and to eliminate Black elected officials and Latino elected officials. What happens in these states impacts the entire country."

How the Supreme Court overturning Section 2 could lead to a redistricting "free-for-all"

In the Louisiana case, a lower court ordered the state's Republican-controlled legislature to draw a new congressional map after a group of Black voters sued under Section 2.

Section 2 "ensures all communities of color can still participate equally in the voting process and elect candidates who reflect their interests," says Alanah Odoms, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Louisiana, whose attorneys are helping to represent those Black voters. "And if communities of color are not able to do that, we stand to lose what I think most of us believe is so fundamental to our democracy, which is equal participation, equal opportunity."

The court-ordered map, which was in effect for the 2024 election, led to Democrats picking up a second seat in Louisiana.

A group of self-described "non-African American" voters, led by Phillip Callais, has argued, however, that the race-based redistricting the court ordered to get in line with Section 2 is unconstitutional. Just as the Supreme Court ruled against race-based affirmative action at colleges and universities in 2023, they argue, the court should put an end to race-based political mapmaking under Section 2.

In seeking a rehearing in the Louisiana case, the Supreme Court asked all sides in the case to consider whether the state's "intentional creation of a second majority-minority congressional district violates the Fourteenth or Fifteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution."

In one of their latest briefs to the high court, Republican state officials in Louisiana now argue against using race "in any form" when redistricting.

And in a major shift from past administrations, the Justice Department under Trump agrees that Section 2's protections against racial discrimination are no longer constitutional.

Two years ago, the Supreme Court rejected a similar argument by Alabama Republicans.

"The court could reaffirm the Voting Rights Act as it did in 2023 in Allen v. Milligan," says Atiba Ellis, a professor and an associate dean at Case Western Reserve University's law school. "But many observers — and I am one of them — have been concerned about the court becoming more and more cynical about race-conscious remedies to address longstanding civil rights wrongs. And this decision has the potential to be the tipping point where the court declares unconstitutional or heavily restricts the ability for Congress to create remedies that promote multiracial democracy."

That kind of decision coming amid the ongoing mid-decade congressional redistricting war between Republicans and Democrats, Ellis adds, could set the stage for a true "free-for-all" — pointing also to the court's 2019 ruling that partisan gerrymandering is not reviewable by federal courts.

"It is one thing for politicians on both sides of the aisle to use the power that they have to engage in unprecedented power grabs. But the most important check on those grabs has been the prevention of racial discrimination," Ellis says about Section 2. "Absent the federal law that would prevent that discrimination, I think the consequences could be tremendous and could be felt for decades."

The window of time to pass new congressional maps before the midterms is closing as state deadlines draw nearer. Louisiana's top election official, Secretary of State Nancy Landry, has asked the Supreme Court to rule in this case by early January 2026 to avoid disrupting the state's current schedule.

But the timing remains unclear for the Supreme Court, which usually releases decisions for major cases toward the end of its term in June.

The court has confirmed that it plans to discuss early next month if it will take up a North Dakota case about whether private individuals and groups — whose lawsuits have been the main way of enforcing Section 2 — can continue to sue. Republican state officials in Mississippi have also raised that issue in another redistricting case on direct appeal to the high court.

Edited by Benjamin Swasey
Copyright 2025 NPR

Federal prosecutors will pursue fewer charges in their second attempt to convict a man accused of starting the deadly 2025 wildfire that became the most destructive in Los Angeles’ history.

A jury deadlocked in June over whether to convict Jonathan Rinderknecht of intentionally sparking the fire that killed 12 people as it incinerated much of the Pacific Palisades and other neighborhoods in Malibu. Ten out of 12 jurors wanted to acquit him on all three felony charges, leading the judge to declare a mistrial. Federal prosecutors vowed to try again, and a second trial is set to start in the fall.

In a new indictment filed Thursday, prosecutors reduced their case against Rinderknecht to two charges and narrowed their scope.

Prosecutors allege that Rinderknecht used a barbecue lighter on Jan. 1, 2025, to spark a fire that burned undetected deep in root systems before flaring back up Jan. 7 to become the Palisades fire, which destroyed more than 6,800 buildings.

All three charges in the first trial blamed Rinderknecht for setting both the Jan. 1 fire and the Palisades Fire. In the new indictment, only one charge references both fires. The other only focuses on the destruction caused by the first fire.

Rinderknecht’s attorney and a spokesperson for the U.S. attorney’s office declined to comment on the new indictment. U.S. District Judge Anne Hwang is holding a status conference for an arraignment on Wednesday.

Throughout the first trial, prosecutors argued that Rinderknecht was the only person in the area when the Jan. 1 fire began and presented a digital trail seeking to show he was motivated by a desire to take revenge on society over rampant economic inequality. They also presented hours of recorded interviews with Rinderknecht in which he offered inconsistent recollections about his movements that night.

Rinderknecht’s attorneys argued that prosecutors lacked direct evidence showing that he started the fire and that they failed to consider fireworks as a potential cause of the first fire.

Saturday marks one year since former Orange County Supervisor Andrew Do started his prison term, after pleading guilty to taking bribes to award tax dollars to people who diverted $7.9 million that was supposed to feed needy seniors during the pandemic.

About $4 million has been recovered so far as a result of the criminal probe, which was prompted by an LAist investigation.

What’s happened since Do went to federal lockup? How much money has been recouped for taxpayers? And will he and his family pay back the bribe money? Here’s what we know.

How much longer will Andrew Do be in prison? 

Do was sentenced to five years in federal prison, which he has been serving at United States Penitentiary, Tucson since Aug. 15 of last year.

His original release date was set for four and a quarter years later, in November 2029. Federal prisoners serve 85% of their sentence if they maintain good behavior, under a nationwide law.

In the year since he started his sentence, Do’s prison term has been shortened by an additional five months, with a new release date of mid-June 2029, according to the federal prison system’s website. Federal law allows many prisoners to further reduce their prison time by completing various classes, trainings and programs.

A spokesperson for the prison system declined to answer specific questions about Do’s time at the facility, saying, “We cannot comment on the conditions of confinement of any individual.”

How much money has been recovered?

The amount of taxpayer money recovered so far is a bit less than half of the $7.9 million Do admitted was diverted from tax dollars he awarded to a newly formed group that was supposed to feed needy seniors during the pandemic.

The county alleges even more — at least $13.4 million — was lost due to the scheme, and that much of it was “plundered” into multiple home purchases in Tustin and elsewhere by various alleged co-conspirators.

Of the $3.7 million recovered and returned to the county, the vast majority was from the main nonprofit and business accused of bribing Do. County supervisors are deferring to Do’s successor, Supervisor Janet Nguyen, to recommend how to spend the money.

More than a decade ago, Nguyen was Do’s mentor and boss when she was supervisor the first time and Do was her chief of staff. She helped him win election to her supervisor seat, before the two had a bitter falling out by 2016. The animosity grew so intense that in 2018 the county Republican Party’s then-chair emailed Do, a fellow Republican, to tell him to immediately stop publicly attacking Nguyen, another Republican, as she ran for reelection to the state Senate.

So far, Nguyen’s gotten approval from her fellow county supervisors to allocate $500,000 of the recovered funds to compensate residents affected by multiday evacuations over a Garden Grove chemical tank that was at risk of exploding. Nguyen has said she wants the chemical tank company to reimburse the county for it.

The county is trying to get back more of the stolen tax dollars from the scheme through an ongoing civil lawsuit against Do, his youngest daughter Rhiannon Do and others alleged to have been involved. The trial is set for late 2027.

What’s happened to Andrew Do’s alleged co-conspirators? 

Federal prosecutors have an ongoing criminal case against two of Andrew Do’s alleged co-conspirators: Peter Pham — who led the nonprofit Viet America Society that handled most of the meal money — and Thanh Huong Nguyen, who led the nonprofit Hand to Hand Relief Organization that also handled meal money directed by the former supervisor.

Federal authorities say Peter Pham remains a fugitive, after flying to Taipei in December 2024, a few months after authorities executed a search warrant at his home.

Following several postponements, Nguyen’s trial is scheduled to start in February.

If she’s convicted, federal prosecutors plan to seek restitution payments, according to Ciaran McEvoy, the U.S. Attorney’s Office spokesperson.

What about Andrew Do’s family?

During the first part of Andrew Do’s scheme, his wife, Cheri Pham was the supervising judge over Orange County’s largest criminal courts, before being promoted to the number-two judge position at the county Superior Court.

As assistant presiding judge, she was on track to become the presiding judge, but in mid-2024 decided not to run amid the controversy swirling around her husband. She now oversees divorce and domestic violence cases in Orange County’s family court, where she started her judicial career. She has not been charged with any wrongdoing.

The Orange County District Attorney’s Office hired Rhiannon Do as an intern in early 2024 after LAist reported that her father routed millions in unaccounted-for dollars to an organization she was listed as helping lead. The internship ended about three months later. Six months later, the DA’s office and federal prosecutors agreed to a diversion agreement that avoided charges against Rhiannon Do, in exchange for her admitting to mortgage fraud and giving up her ownership of the Tustin home that was purchased as a bribe to her father.

Last year, Rhiannon Do graduated from law school and passed the bar exam that’s required to become an attorney in California. She is not currently listed as an attorney on the state bar’s website. To become an attorney, people must also pass a moral character review that looks, among other things, at any past fraud accusations and cases involving the applicant. That review is confidential.

Ilene Do, Andrew Do’s oldest daughter, previously worked as a customer engagement coordinator at Moulton Niguel Water District and left sometime before late 2024, the water district previously told LAist.

Kate Corrigan, an attorney for Cheri Pham, said she and Cheri Pham do not have any comment. Andrew Do, Rhiannon Do and Ilene Do did not respond to requests for comment from LAist through their attorneys.

Other problems found with Andrew Do’s direction of tax dollars? 

In the wake of the Andrew Do scandal, his former colleagues on the county Board of Supervisors commissioned a series of forensic audit reports by an outside firm into the broader picture of county contract spending during the pandemic.

The first phase, released this March, found Andrew Do and his top aide had a longstanding pattern of misspending public money far beyond the focus of the criminal case that landed the former supervisor in prison.

The audit found Andrew Do and his chief of staff at the time, Chris Wangsaporn, undermined procedures meant to prevent abuse of county money, while using their influence to steer taxpayer contracts to friends, family and businesses — often with little information about the services being provided. Those contractors would then donate to his election campaigns “shortly after,” auditors found.

Among its many findings, the first report found Andrew Do routed hundreds of thousands more dollars than previously reported to companies affiliated with Peter Pham.

The audit’s second phase, released this week, identified more questionable spending directed by Andrew Do, including a $500,000 grant to the company of Frank Jao, a major real estate developer in Little Saigon. That taxpayer contract never required the company, Bridgecreek Realty Investment Corp., to provide supporting documentation for how the money was spent — such as invoices or receipts, according to the audit. In the end, there is no documentation for how more than half of the taxpayer funds were used, it says.

The audit also details numerous times that top county officials did not act after they were alerted to potential irregularities regarding millions in county funds awarded to Viet America Society, the nonprofit connected to Rhiannon Do. The audit details an occasion in which Clayton Chau, the former county healthcare director who asked that money be routed to Rhiannon Do’s clinic at the nonprofit, reprimanded a subordinate for raising concerns.

Chau is now chief medical officer at National Healthcare & Housing Advisors, which operates three healthcare campuses in California.

Two more phases of the audit are underway.

Susan Egan is a trailblazer in the Disney world.

She’s best known as the voice of Megara in "Hercules" and the original Belle in the Broadway version of "Beauty and the Beast."

This weekend, Egan is being honored at the D23: The Ultimate Disney Fan Event in Anaheim as a Disney Legend along with more than a dozen actors, composers and other contributors.

Egan’s relationship with the world of Disney started at a young age. She grew up in Seal Beach, less than an hour away from Disneyland, and says her mother would take her and her siblings to the park on a school day every year.

“It just never occurred to me that you could actually work for that company, that could be what you do for a living,” Egan told LAist “It just seemed like play all the time.”

She was the first actor to play a Disney princess on Broadway in 1994, and said at the time it was a risky decision.

“We really didn't know if it was going to work. In essence, taking a cartoon and bringing it to the live audience, having to change some of the mythology because, you know, we can't be a 10-inch tall teapot. You have to be a full human-sized teapot,” said Egan.

But she says the audience loved the Broadway production as much as they loved the movie.

She went on to voice the sharp-tongued Megara from "Hercules," who she calls a “Disney heroine ahead of her time.”

“Honestly her flaws are what make her so relatable. I hear from a lot of young women ‘Oh Meg, I could relate to Meg.’ I go, ‘Me too. Honestly yeah, string of bad boyfriends, same.'”

Egan has harnessed her love for Disney into her production company, 10th & Main, with producing partner Adam J. Levy. Together they’ve produced Disney Princess: The Concert, which has toured across five continents, the recurring production aboard Disney cruise ships called Broadway Star Series and other programs.

10th & Main is also putting together a show for the D23: The Ultimate Disney Fan Event this weekend called Disney Rewind Concerts. Egan says it’s celebrating the Disney movies from the ‘80s and ‘90s.

“ We have the voice of Goofy, Bill Farmer, and Jodi Benson, the voice of Little Mermaid, is in the concert. We've got Disney icon Jim Cummings, who's the voice of 400 Disney characters,” said Egan. It’s happening on Friday and Saturday night and will be streamed on Disney+.

D23: The Ultimate Disney Fan Event runs this weekend Aug. 14 through Aug. 16 at the Anaheim Convention Center. There will be performances and panels from the cast and producers of Percy Jackson and the Olympians, The Simpsons, Camp Rock 3 and others.

The 2028 Olympics and Paralympics in Los Angeles will cost billions to put on, but there are currently no guarantees that any of that business will go to companies or small businesses in the city of Los Angeles.

That's a problem for local officials, who point out that the city of L.A. is the host and financial backer of the Games and should therefore reap the benefits.

Olympic contracts for things like IT services, cleaning and construction for the Games are worth up to $4 billion, according to LA28. L.A. City Council President Marqueece Harris-Dawson filed a motion Wednesday asking the private Olympics organizing committee LA28 to commit to giving some of those contracts to businesses in the city specifically.

The move responds to critiques of LA28's procurement plan, which council members in April warned could end up leaving out the city of Los Angeles entirely.

LA28 says it's aiming to keep 75% of its spending in the Greater L.A. area, and put 25% towards small businesses. Its procurement plan pledges to prioritize "hyperlocal" businesses in the city of L.A., but makes no explicit promises. Instead, it identifies "local" as anywhere in L.A., Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino and Ventura counties.

Harris-Dawson's motion would direct city staff to request LA28 go further, developing an L.A.-specific spending commitment.

"There is no assurance that Olympic-related spending will meaningfully benefit Los Angeles businesses, workers, and communities in proportion to the City's role as host," the motion reads in part.

The motion still needs to get through council, but there are indications that it will meet an unwilling LA28.

LA28 CEO Reynold Hoover told the city council earlier this year that organizers would prioritize city businesses, but that he would not commit to a plan that would limit LA28's financial options.

"If I focus solely, first and foremost, on the city of L.A. for small business, then I am artificially reducing the pool of competition, placing greater risk on the city taxpayers and placing greater risk on the backstop of the city of L.A.," Hoover said.

The motion reflects the latest way city leaders are trying to limit risk and increase rewards for Los Angeles, which is on the hook for a potentially large amount of money if the 2028 Olympics and Paralympics are a financial failure.