Trump warns Iran better 'get smart soon' and accept nuclear deal

The US Supreme Court on Wednesday sharply limited the use of race in drawing electoral districts, in a decision that could reshape congressional maps nationwide and boost Republican prospects ahead of midterm elections.

In a 6–3 ruling split along ideological lines, the conservative-dominated court struck down a map that creates a second majority-Black district in Louisiana, finding it amounted to an unconstitutional racial gerrymander despite being drawn to comply with the 1965 Voting Rights Act (VRA).

The decision leaves the core of the VRA intact but narrows how it can be applied, and will be seen by civil rights activists as a blow to a landmark law that has already been weakened by previous rulings over the past decade.

Democracy Docket, a voting rights platform, said the ruling could help secure 27 extra Republican seats, cementing the party's control in the US House of Representatives "for at least a generation."

"Without racial protections, maps could be redrawn with almost no limits," the outlet reported.

It was not immediately clear how much the ruling will affect November's elections, with primaries already underway and legal challenges likely to delay any changes.

Republicans are nonetheless expected to push for new maps in states where time and the law permit.

Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito said that compliance with the VRA "could not justify" the use of race in this case, arguing that Section 2 of the act does not require states to draw districts primarily on racial lines.

"That map is an unconstitutional gerrymander, and its use would violate the plaintiffs' constitutional rights," he said, referring to the group of non-Black voters who brought the case.

The ruling marks a significant shift in how courts interpret the balance between preventing racial discrimination and adhering to constitutional guarantees of equal protection, raising the bar for when race can be considered in redistricting.

Both the majority ruling and the dissent were read from the bench, a rare move in the high court.

- Sweeping consequences -

Justice Elena Kagan warned that the decision would have sweeping consequences, saying it risked letting states "systematically dilute minority citizens' voting power" without legal redress.

The case centered on an electoral map redrawn after the 2020 Census to add a second district in which Black voters formed a majority, following court challenges that the previous map diluted minority voting strength.

That revised map was then challenged by a group of non-Black voters who argued it relied too heavily on race, setting up a clash between efforts to enforce voting rights protections and constitutional limits on race-based decision-making.

The Supreme Court ultimately sided with those challengers, concluding that the map crossed the line into unconstitutional racial sorting.

The implications could extend far beyond a single state. Legal analysts say the ruling may make it harder to create or maintain majority-minority districts -- a key tool used for decades to ensure representation for Black and other minority voters.

Such districts have often favored Democratic candidates, meaning the decision could give Republicans an advantage in closely contested House races in November.

"(It) is about the many other districts, particularly in the South, that in the last half-century have given minority citizens, and particularly African Americans, a meaningful political voice," Kagan said.

"After today, those districts exist only on sufferance, and probably not for long."

The case comes amid an intensifying national battle over redistricting, with both Republican- and Democratic-led states seeking to redraw boundaries in ways that could shift the balance of power in Congress.

Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act -- the provision at the center of the case -- was designed to prevent voting practices that dilute minority influence, even without explicit evidence of discrimination.

But the court's conservative majority has increasingly signaled discomfort with race-conscious remedies, suggesting they must have limits under what conservative Justice Clarence Thomas, who is Black, described as a "color-blind" Constitution.

The ruling follows a series of decisions that have chipped away at the Voting Rights Act, including a 2013 judgment that struck down a key provision requiring federal oversight of election law changes in states with histories of discrimination.

ft/des

A centuries-old element of Britain's parliament came to an end on Wednesday as hereditary peers took their seats in the House of Lords for the final time.

The Labour government has axed the 92 spots in the unelected upper chamber reserved for peers who inherit their position as a member of an aristocratic family.

They held titles such as dukes, viscounts, and earls, and their presence in the Lords stretches back to the 15th century.

Lawmakers approved their departure last month and it took effect on Wednesday when the current parliamentary session ended ahead of local elections next week.

The speaker of the Lords, Michael Forsyth, paid tribute to those losing their seats.

"At the conclusion of this session, those noble lords who sit by virtue of hereditary peerages will cease to be members of this house," he said.

"On behalf of the house, I pay tribute to their distinguished service and offer them our sincere thanks."

Lesotho in southern Africa was the only other country in the world with a hereditary element in its legislature, according to the UK government.

Prime Minister Keir Starmer's administration has called the reform "one of the biggest... in a generation".

The Lords comprises around 800 members, most of whom are appointed for life.

They include former MPs, typically appointed by departing prime ministers, along with people nominated after serving in prominent public- or private-sector roles. Senior Church of England clerics, including the Archbishop of Canterbury, also sit in the chamber.

Several existing hereditary peers were made life peers recently to allow them to continue to sit.

Former prime minister Tony Blair removed 600 hereditary peers in the late 1990s, but 92 were retained in what was supposed to be a temporary compromise.

The primary role of the upper chamber is to scrutinise the government.

It cannot override legislation sent from the elected House of Commons, but it can amend and delay bills and initiate new draft laws.

MPs and peers will return to parliament on May 13 for the King's Speech, when the government will lay out its legislative plans for the next year.

pdh/jkb/jj

Canada's central bank held its key lending rate at 2.25 percent on Wednesday, but warned it may need to act if inflation caused by the Middle East war persists.

The fallout from the US‑Israeli strikes on Iran has sent energy prices soaring. The impacts in Canada, a net oil exporter, have been more muted than in other regions, but prices at the pump are shooting up.

The Bank of Canada said it would continue "looking through the war's immediate impact on inflation," and would not raise rates in response to temporary oil price shocks.

But it added that it "will not let higher energy prices become persistent inflation," and said it was "ready to respond as needed."

Bank of Canada Governor Tiff Macklem told reporters: "The higher oil prices go, and the longer they're higher, the more likely it is that we'll have to raise rates."

But, he added, the bank's baseline forecast is that oil prices will come down. He said the bank will be closely watching to see if elevated energy costs trigger higher prices on other goods.

- Tariff uncertainty -

The rate pause marks the fourth consecutive hold for Canada's central bank, which has previously said it wants to stay on the sidelines for as long as possible while uncertainty hovers over the key forces shaping the economy.

Prior to the Middle East war, the main source of uncertainty was the future trading relationship with the United States.

President Donald Trump's sector-specific tariffs have hurt crucial parts of Canada's economy, particularly the auto, steel and aluminum sectors.

But more than 85 percent of cross-border trade has remained tariff-free thanks to the existing North American free trade agreement.

Revision talks on that deal are set to intensify. Trump has said the agreement is "irrelevant" to the United States.

His top trade officials have made clear that Washington wants substantial changes to the agreement that Trump signed and praised during his first term.

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney has said the United States will not dictate the terms of a new agreement.

Macklem said "uncertainty is unusually elevated," and that a deterioration in trade relations with the United States could force a rate cut.

"Monetary policy may need to be nimble. If the United States imposes significant new trade restrictions on Canada, we may need to cut the policy rate further to support economic growth," he told reporters in Ottawa.

CIBC said in a note that the central bank faces a "two-way risk" — an economy facing inflation pressure because of the war while also confronting "sluggish growth" that could soften further if trade with the United States faces additional levies.

bs/dw

Dissident guerrillas from Colombia's defunct FARC rebel army took responsibility for a bomb attack that killed 21 people, claiming a "tactical error" during an electoral campaign marked by a surge in violence.

The devastating explosion on a highway in the southwestern Cauca department injured another 56 people and was the biggest single loss of life since FARC blew up a Bogota nightclub in 2003, killing 36 people.

Coming a month before presidential elections on May 31, the attack fueled fears that violence is on the rise once again, 10 years after FARC agreed to disarm after a half-century of conflict with the state.

The dissident FARC offshoot Central General Command (EMC) took responsibility for the attack, stating late on Tuesday that the incident had occurred during clashes with the army and had resulted from "errors" in the group's military manoeuvres.

The EMC is led by Ivan Mordisco, Colombia's most-wanted criminal suspect.

It broke away from FARC when the latter laid down arms in a historic peace accord in 2016.

"With profound sorrow, we must assume political responsibility for this tactical error, which has no justification whatsoever," the statement read.

A military source told AFP that the guerrillas had set up a checkpoint on the road to ambush soldiers.

Colombian Defense Minister Pedro Sanchez said the reprisal had followed military pressure after peace negotiations between left-wing President Gustavo Petro and Mordisco.

Colombian police on Tuesday captured Jose Vitonco, an alleged leader of a local rebel group with links to Mordisco and who police said was the "main person responsible" for the attack in Cauca.

Petro has called the incident a "terrorist" attack and asserts that it was an attempt to sabotage the elections, in which he is barred from running for a second term.

His party's candidate Ivan Cepeda is leading in the polls, trailed by rightwing candidates Abelardo de la Espriella and Paloma Valencia.

das/dga/cc/cb/dw

(The Center Square) — The Supreme Court struck down Louisiana’s congressional map Wednesday, ruling that the state relied too heavily on race when it created a second majority-Black district.

The 6-3 ruling means Louisiana’s current map, known as SB8, cannot be used as drawn. The decision sends the case back to a lower court and sets the stage for yet another round of congressional redistricting in a state that has spent years fighting over its political boundaries. 

At the center of the case was Louisiana’s 6th Congressional District, which lawmakers redrew to connect Black voters from Baton Rouge, Lafayette, Alexandria and Shreveport. The district stretched across much of the state and was designed to have a Black voting-age population above 50%.

According to the opinion, there are only two “compelling interests” that allow a state to discriminate based on race: avoiding imminent and serious threats to safety in prisons and remedying specific, identified instances of past discrimination that violated the Constitution or a statute.

The court said compliance with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act can also provide a compelling interest in some redistricting cases. But the majority said that applies only when the law actually requires the state to use race to fix a voting-rights violation.

Lawmakers created the district after a separate federal court found that Louisiana’s previous map likely violated the Voting Rights Act because it included only one majority-Black district, even though about one-third of the state’s population is Black.

But the new map quickly drew another lawsuit. Opponents argued the state had gone too far in the other direction by using race as the main factor in drawing the district. 

The Supreme Court agreed, meaning Louisiana will again have to redraw its congressional lines, likely closer to the map lawmakers approved in 2022, which included one majority-Black district centered around New Orleans. 

Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito said Louisiana’s effort to comply with the earlier Voting Rights Act ruling was “understandable,” but still unconstitutional.

The court said the Voting Rights Act did not require Louisiana to create a second majority-Black district, so the state had no strong enough legal reason to use race in that way. This is where the Supreme Court disagreed with the earlier federal court ruling in the Robinson case, which had found that Louisiana’s previous map likely violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. 

“In sum, 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,” Alito wrote. 

That part of the decision could make it harder to bring successful Voting Rights Act challenges in redistricting cases.

Justice Elena Kagan, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, dissented. Kagan argued the majority had weakened one of the central protections of the Voting Rights Act and made it easier for states to dilute minority voting power.

President Donald Trump warned Tehran on Wednesday that it should "get smart soon" and capitulate to Washington's demands for tight controls on its nuclear programme, as a US naval blockade turned the screws on Iran's economy.

Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth was due to testify before Congress later in the day, but US press reports suggested Trump has already decided to reject Iran's latest proposed deal to reopen the Strait of Hormuz.

The news sent oil prices higher once again. At around 1335 GMT, a barrel of Brent crude for June delivery was up 5.16 percent at $117, its highest level since the fragile ceasefire between the United States and Iran came into effect on April 8.

According to the Wall Street Journal, Trump intends to pursue the blockade of Iranian ports until Tehran is forced to dismantle its nuclear programme.

"Iran can't get their act together... They better get smart soon," Trump posted on his social media platform, above a mocked-up picture of himself toting a rifle in front of explosions wrecking a desert fortress and the slogan: "No more Mr Nice Guy."  

Iran has blockaded the strait -- a vital conduit for oil and gas shipments from the Gulf -- since the US and Israel launched the war two months ago, sending shockwaves through the global economy. But its own economy is also suffering.

On Wednesday, the Iranian rial fell to historic lows against the dollar, while Tehran residents speaking to AFP journalists in Paris reported a sense of despair.

"Every time in recent years that negotiations have taken place, the economic situation of the people has only gotten worse. Sanctions have either started or intensified," a 52-year-old architect told AFP, speaking on condition of anonymity.  

"They go to negotiate and come back with even more sanctions, and the issue is always nuclear. There's no talk about people, the economy, or freedom. People have the right to not even want to hear the word 'negotiation'," he said.

- 'No trust' -

During a White House state dinner Tuesday, Trump told Britain's King Charles III and other guests that Iran has been "militarily defeated", and added: "Charles agrees with me even more than I do -- we're never going to let that opponent have a nuclear weapon."

But an Iranian army spokesman told state TV on Tuesday that "we do not consider the war to be over", saying Tehran had "no trust in America".

"We have many cards that we have not yet used... new tools and methods of fighting based on the experiences of the past two wars, which will definitely allow us to respond to the enemy more decisively" should the fighting resume, Amir Akraminia said in an interview.

Efforts to end the war have stalled in recent days. The latest Iranian proposal, passed along by Pakistan and studied by Trump administration officials in a meeting Monday, laid out red lines including on nuclear issues and Hormuz, according to Iran's Fars news agency. 

The plan would reportedly see Tehran ease its chokehold on the strait and Washington lift its retaliatory blockade while broader negotiations continue, including over the nuclear programme.

Iranian defence ministry spokesman Reza Talaei-Nik said Washington "must abandon its illegal and irrational demands".

"The United States is no longer in a position to dictate its policy to independent nations," he said, according to state TV.

Qatar -- a US ally that was hit by Iranian strikes despite its role as a mediator -- warned of the possibility of a "frozen conflict" if a definitive resolution is not found.

- 'Attacks cannot continue' -

Violence has continued on the war's Lebanese front, despite a recently extended ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah, the Iran-backed armed group that drew Lebanon into the war by firing rockets at Israel. Israel responded with strikes and a ground invasion.

For the first time since the ceasefire began, the Lebanese army said Tuesday that an Israeli strike had targeted its troops, wounding two soldiers in the south. Another strike Wednesday killed a Lebanese soldier, it said.

"Israel must finally realise that the only path to security is through negotiations, but it must first fully implement the ceasefire in order to move on to negotiations," Lebanese President Joseph Aoun said, in a statement from the presidency. 

"Israeli attacks cannot continue as they are," he said. "We are now waiting for the United States to set a date to begin direct negotiations."

A UN-backed report said Wednesday that more than 1.2 million people in Lebanon were expected to face acute hunger due to the latest war.

burs-dc/ser

(The Center Square) - The U.S. Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, sided with a nonprofit pregnancy center in a federal lawsuit. 

The case, First Choice Women's Resource Centers v. Davenport, focuses on a New Jersey pregnancy center that provides counseling and resources to pregnant women. In 2022, former New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin issued a subpoena seeking personal information of donors who contributed financially to the pregnancy center. 

The attorney general accused First Choice of seeking to prevent people from accessing reproductive healthcare by providing "false or misleading" abortion information. 

First Choice argued that it was unable to protect the anonymity of its donors if it provided their personally identifiable information. A lower court denied the pregnancy center's claim, on the basis that it did not display reasonable injury. 

The justices on the Supreme Court sided with the pregnancy center, ruling that producing a list of clients violates the First Amendment. 

"The attorney general's subpoena has caused First Choice to suffer ongoing injury to its First Amendment rights," Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote in the court's unanimous opinion. 

Gorusch pointed to a larger trend of attorneys general across the country who conduct similar behavior. 

"Over and again, we have held those demands burden the exercise of First Amendment rights," Gorsuch said. "Some are old, some are new, but none succeeds."

SBA Pro-Life America President Marjorie Dannenfelser said in a statement provided to The Center Square that the ruling "is huge win for all Americans who stand with mothers and babies and know that, yes, we CAN love them both. Pregnancy centers across America provide hundreds of millions’ worth of vital services a year for women, children and families, typically at no charge and frequently as volunteers. Unlike the abortion industry, they don’t profit from violence and harm, including the harm of abortion drugs that fuel coercion and abuse and send thousands of women to the emergency room each year. Even the Court’s left-leaning justices recognized the far-reaching chill AG Platkin’s weaponization of government would have on all Americans cherished freedoms."

Her Plan Executive Director Autumn Christensen added: “Today’s ruling is a monumental victory for everyone offering support to vulnerable mothers and their children. The court saw this for what it was – a fishing expedition designed to intimidate Americans who offer real support for women every day. Charities should be able to serve the vulnerable in freedom, not fear. Today, the Supreme Court upheld that right.”

Mali's Tuareg rebels told AFP Wednesday the country's ruling junta will fall and that they intend to conquer the north, just days after unprecedented large-scale attacks targeting the nation's military government.

Over the weekend jihadists and the Tuareg separatists launched the largest assault on the country in nearly 15 years, attacking the military junta and its Russian paramilitary backers.

Acknowledging the situation was "of extreme gravity", junta chief Assimi Goita, who had not been seen for three days, said in a speech on TV late Tuesday that the situation was "under control".

But a spokesman for the Tuareg separatist coalition Azawad Liberation Front (FLA) told AFP during a visit to Paris on Wednesday that "the regime will fall, sooner or later". 

The clashes have pitted the army not just against the FLA but also its allies within the Al-Qaeda-linked jihadist Group for the Support of Islam and Muslims (JNIM).

Their coordinated dawn offensive on Saturday against strategic junta positions, including areas around the capital, Bamako, killed at least 23 people, with the toll expected to rise.

The two days of fierce fighting also killed Defence Minister Sadio Camara -- seen as the mastermind behind the junta's pivot to Russia. His funeral is planned for Thursday.

The separatists and jihadists were able to capture the key northern town of Kidal and also targeted Gao in the mostly desert north along with Mopti and Sevare in the centre.

Gao is the army's second-largest military stronghold after Kati, a garrison town near Bamako which is home to several senior junta officials and was targeted in the weekend attacks.

FLA spokesman Mohamed Elmaouloud Ramadane told AFP on Wednesday that the rebels intend to take control of Gao, Timbuktu and Menaka following their success in Kidal.

In the Gao region, the Malian army has already abandoned some of its positions, local sources told AFP.

- Russian withdrawal -

Since 2012, the west African nation has faced a profound security crisis fuelled in particular by violence from groups affiliated with Al-Qaeda and the Islamic State, as well as local criminal gangs and pro-independence groups.

The latest assaults raise questions about the junta's ability to tackle the security crisis, despite its insistence that its strategy, foreign partnerships and increased military efforts have stemmed the jihadist threat.

Mali's junta government, like its military counterparts in neighbouring Niger and Burkina Faso, have severed ties with former colonial ruler France and several Western countries, moving closer politically and militarily to Russia.

Russia's mercenary Wagner Group, which had been fighting with Malian forces against jihadists since 2021, ended their involvement in June 2025. It has since become the Africa Corps, an organisation under the direct control of the Russian defence ministry.

Although JNIM and FLA have different goals, according to experts, they are united against a common enemy -- the military junta that has ruled since 2020 and the Russian paramilitary backers.

FLA spokesman Ramadane additionally told AFP Wednesday that his group's "objective is for Russia to withdraw permanently from Azawad and beyond, from all of Mali".

The FLA is made up of mainly Tuareg groups who want independence for Azawad, a territory in northern Mali.

"We have no particular problem with Russia, nor with any other country. Our problem is with the regime that governs Bamako", Ramadane said.

- Fairweather friends -

A historically nomadic people, Tuaregs, who are spread across Mali, Niger, Algeria, Libya and Burkina Faso, have waged an armed struggle for decades against marginalisation, with action centred in particular around the key city of Kidal.

The most recent attacks are reminiscent of a crisis that rocked Mali in 2012, when Tuareg rebels joined forces with jihadists to capture strategic hubs in the vast, remote north.

That offensive was repelled by forces from France, which has since left the Sahel country. 

The alliance between the jihadists and Tuareg rebels eventually unravelled when they turned on each other and the jihadists drove the Tuareg separatists out.

The latest attacks are the result of a new alliance forged a year ago.

cl-dab-lp-bfm/cw

(The Center Square) – The U.S. Supreme Court is hearing arguments in two cases to determine whether orders ending temporary protected status for Haiti and Syria are constitutional. 

Justices on the court are hearing Trump v. Miot and Mullin v. Doe. The two cases challenge an order from President Donald Trump that sought to terminate the special immigration status for Haitian and Syrian immigrants living in the United States. 

Temporary protected status is granted to immigrants who are fleeing war or natural disasters in their home countries. Haitian and Syrian nationals challenged the Trump administration's order. 

Kristi Noem, former Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, terminated the protected immigration status indiscriminately, a lower court judge said. 

The U.S. Supreme Court has previously allowed the Trump administration to end temporary protected status for immigrants from Venezuela.  

Carrie Severino, president of the Judicial Crisis Network, said she expects justices on the court to reach the same conclusion as they did for Venezuelan immigrants. Justices on the court are expected to decide if lower court judges have the authority to stop the Trump administration from stripping temporary status from the Haitian and Syrian immigrants. 

"Congress made clear in the Immigration and Nationality Act that for Temporary Protected Status, '[t]here is no judicial review of any determination' regarding 'the designation, or termination or extension of a designation, of a foreign state,'" Severino said. 

Haiti was first granted temporary protected status in 2010, after an earthquake severely damaged the country’s infrastructure. In 2024, the Biden administration extended temporary protected status for Haiti, based on general concerns about security and humanitarian concerns in the country.

Lawyers for the Haitian immigrants argued that the country is not safe for migrants to return. They also argued that the policy could cause damage to public safety in the United States.

“Stripping TPS holders of their status may discourage them from reporting crimes or seeking medical care due to fear of detention or deportation,” the lawyers wrote.

Syria was first designated temporary protected status in 2012, after the outbreak of the Syrian Civil War. In 2024, the Biden administration extended the cutoff date for Syrian migrants and gave amnesty to anyone who arrived in the U.S. since 2012. About 6,100 Syrian migrants live in the United States under temporary protected status.

Lawyers for the Trump administration cited ongoing diplomatic negotiations between the U.S. and Syria following the end of the civil war in 2024.

“Thwarting the Secretary’s determination of TPS thus undercuts the Secretary’s judgment as to how best to protect the public and how best to further the government’s foreign-policy goals,” lawyers for the Trump administration wrote.

Justices are hearing arguments at the court and are expected to issue a decision in both cases by July, the end of the court's term.

(The Center Square) - Democrat and Republican candidates running for attorney general in Georgia sparred over various priorities for running the state’s largest law firm in a debate hosted by the Atlanta Press Club.

Republican Candidates

State Sens. Bill Cowsert and Brian Strickland both said they would uphold the priorities of President Donald Trump when leading the state’s legal branch. Strickland said he would target cities in Georgia attempting to avoid the Trump administration’s immigration policies.

“When there is a detainer hold on someone that has been arrested, who has been in our country illegally, they should be deported at that time,” Strickland said.

In May 2025, the Department of Justice published a list of sanctuary cities and jurisdictions where elected officials did not cooperate with federal immigration enforcement. Atlanta and Athens, Georgia, were on the list but later removed.

The Federation for American Immigration Reform said Atlanta has operated as a sanctuary city since 2017. In 2018, then-Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance-Bottoms stated that local police should not honor ICE detainers.

Georgia state law has prohibited sanctuary city policies since 2009.

The candidates also debated the investigation of Fani Willis, a Georgia prosecutor who indicted Trump for election interference in 2020. Willis faced intense scrutiny after allegations that she misused funds and engaged in a romantic relationship with special prosecutor Nathan Wade.

“There was no question she was unethical, Cowsert said. “She was using that office for personal gain, for profit and for political persecution rather than proper purposes of criminal prosecution.”

Cowsert also called on the attorney general’s office to prosecute election fraud. He introduced a resolution during the 2026 General Assembly session that would create a statewide grand jury to prosecute election fraud. The bill did not pass.

Cowsert criticized the Fulton County District Attorney's Office for its handling of election fraud cases.

“Our citizens need to know that their vote counts and that it’s a fair election and there’s no interference or fraud,” Cowsert said.

The candidates also feuded over past law experience and campaign endorsements. Strickland attended Florida Coastal School of Law, which closed in 2021, due to accreditation and funding issues.

Cowsert said the school’s closure “bothered” him and asserted that Strickland did not have the experience necessary to lead the attorney general’s office.

“I have tried over 500 trials throughout the state of Georgia,” Cowsert said. “There’s nobody that can match the experience, the understanding of the litigation process and the law.”

Strickland criticized Cowsert over a lack of campaign endorsements from Georgia sheriffs or district attorneys. He also appeared to criticize Cowsert as the longest-serving Republican state senator in Georgia.

“Every single sheriff that has endorsed in this race, every single elected prosecutor, has endorsed me,” Strickland said. “They know how important this race is. Politicians talk big, but they don’t have the backs of our law enforcement officials when they get in office.”

Democrat Candidates

Rep. Tanya Miller and former Rep. Robert Trammell debated over policies while seeking the Democratic nomination for Georgia’s attorney general post. The two democrats slammed the Trump administration and said they would seek to prosecute the president over various issues, including election interference.

“We’re going to fight the corporations that are keeping prices high by cheating and ripping off Georgia families and we’re going to hold Trump’s enablers accountable in court,” Miller said.

Trammell slammed Georgia’s Living Infants Fairness and Equality Act, often referred to as the “heartbeat law,” which bans abortions once fetal heart activity is detected.

“When I’m attorney general, our office will not prosecute women and we will not prosecute doctors under that law,” Trammell said.

Trammell also called on the office of the attorney general to be more involved in the process of giving guidance on the types of laws coming out of the state’s general assembly.

Miller accused corporate real estate investors in Atlanta of price fixing to keep prices artificially high. She said she would target these investors if elected as attorney general.

“We have absolutely seen no action on behalf of Republicans to protect renters in that specific regard,” Miller said. “Under my administration as attorney general, we will absolutely protect people, especially in their time of need.”

Miller and Trammell also slammed Attorney General Chris Carr for his efforts to indict 61 people on racketeering charges after a 2023 protest at the Atlanta Public Safety Training Center.

In December, a judge dismissed part of the case and said Carr did not have the authority to indict people with those specific charges. The judge said only local district attorneys could bring such charges.

However, Carr brought new indictments against three people on charges of money laundering and setting construction equipment on fire.

Miller said she would review every indictment Carr brought against individuals and evaluate it with a determination of “proof beyond a reasonable doubt.”

“When you indict people with a crime, you put their lives on the line,” Miller said. “You need to know what you're doing. You need to understand the rules, and you need to make sure that the evidence suits every individual and every charge that you have levied.”

Trammell also said he would evaluate the charges brought against those individuals and would most likely dismiss them. He said he has no plans to extensively evaluate Carr’s actions as attorney general.

“We're not going to bring the broom to try to clean that up for the present attorney general,” Trammell said. “We're going to evaluate them and in most cases, a lot of those cases are going to be dismissed.”

Early voting for the May 19 primary runs through May 15.