Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Fair maps advocates sound the alarm over gerrymandering in three states

Anti-gerrymandering sign

Fair maps advocates are raising concerns over several states lacking transparency in the redistricting process.

Bill Clark/Getty Images

With the 2021 redistricting cycle in full swing, one-third of the country has already solidified some of its new state and federal districts for the next decade.

Sixteen states have completed at least one redistricting plan so far, with 11 of them finalizing maps for both Congress and the state legislature (setting aside states with one congressional district). But the mapmaking process is far from over due to several legal challenges already filed against states for potential voting rights violations.

Fair maps advocates are raising the alarm over a lack of transparency and particularly egregious redistricting plans in North Carolina, Ohio and Texas — three states with a history of partisan gerrymandering.


Advocates say that these such instances of partisan gerrymandering could be thwarted if Congress were to pass the Freedom to Vote Act, a broad electoral reform bill. But Republicans have used filibusters to block the legislation from moving forward.

"This redistricting cycle is not yet over. There is still time to salvage the next decade of elections for millions of Americans. The Freedom to Vote Act provides the tools voters need right now to secure national redistricting reform that puts power back in the hands of the people, where it belongs," said Kathay Feng, national redistricting director at Common Cause.

North Carolina

The North Carolina Legislature has finalized its maps for the state House, the state Senate and Congress. All three plans have received failing grades from the Princeton Gerrymandering Project for significantly advantaging Republicans.

Bob Phillips, executive director of Common Cause North Carolina, said during a press call that his organization is concerned these maps will harm minority voters and make it harder for Black lawmakers to be re-elected.

"We have 36 African American lawmakers in the General Assembly and by the way these maps have been drawn, 25 percent of these folks may not come back," Phillips said. "We care about the process, not the outcome, but I'm just stating, factually, what the outcome is."

Additionally, there was a lack of transparency throughout the redistricting process, Phillips noted. None of the public meetings were livestreamed by the government so Common Cause North Carolina recorded them instead. It was also difficult to discern which lawmakers were involved in the drawing of maps and whether racial or partisan data was being considered in the process, he added.

Ohio

For the first time, Ohio is using a hybrid commission system to draw its maps. For congressional maps, the Legislature must attempt to pass plans with bipartisan approval. If that fails, the mapmaking authority goes to a seven-member commission, and if that commission also fails to approve maps, it goes back to the Legislature and maps will only be in effect for four years.

However, Ohio's bipartisan redistricting commission only held one meeting, in which members heard testimony but did not vote on any proposed maps of their own. Because the commission failed to produce and approve redistricting plans, the mapmaking authority has now been punted back to the Republican-controlled Legislature.

"For months, Ohioans have pleaded with state leaders for a fair, transparent and participatory redistricting process. Yet even after voters overwhelmingly approved redistricting reform in 2018, those in power are showing that they will continue to shut out the voters to manipulate the process and district lines to their political advantage," said Catherine Turcer, executive director of Common Cause Ohio.

While the congressional maps are not yet finalized, drafts proposed by lawmakers so far have received failing grades from the Princeton Gerrymandering Project due to significant Republican gerrymanders.

The maps for the state House and state Senate were finalized in early October. The state House map received an F because it gives Republicans a significant advantage. The state Senate map was more fairly drawn, with only a slight Republican advantage, more compact districts and fewer county splits, so the Princeton Gerrymandering Project graded it a B.

Texas

In Texas, the lawmaker-drawn maps for Congress and the Legislature did not receive glowing report cards from the Princeton Gerrymandering Project. The congressional maps were graded an F for giving significant advantage to Republicans and including non-compact districts and more county splits than usual.

The state Senate maps also got a failing grade for advantaging Republicans and being very uncompetitive and non-compact. The state House maps were graded a C for only slightly favoring the GOP, but giving considerable advantage to incumbents.

As state lawmakers drafted and approved these maps, there was very little transparency and few opportunities for meaningful public input, said Anthony Gutierrez, executive director of Common Cause Texas. Map proposals were published only a few days before public hearings, so advocates and citizens did not have an adequate amount of time to review them, he said.

Although Texas' election maps have been finalized, several lawsuits have been filed challenging them for potentially violating the Voting Rights Act by diluting the voting power of Black, Latino, Asian American and Pacific Islander and other minority voters.

"Texas is just the latest state to suffer through an unfair redistricting process and gerrymandered maps. Without action from Congress this year, we won't be the last," Gutierrez said.

Other states have also earned poor marks, but were not cited by Common Cause. For example, mapmakers in Illinois earned an F for both the congressional and state Senate maps, which heavily favor Democrats.


Read More

Paul Ehrlich was wrong about everything

Crowd of people walking on a street.

Andy Andrews//Getty Images

Paul Ehrlich was wrong about everything

Biologist and author Paul Ehrlich, the most influential Chicken Little of the last century, died at the age of 93 this week. His 1968 book, “The Population Bomb,” launched decades of institutional panic in government, entertainment and journalism.

Ehrlich’s core neo-Malthusian argument was that overpopulation would exhaust the supply of food and natural resources, leading to a cascade of catastrophes around the world. “The Population Bomb” opens with a bold prediction, “The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Bravado Isn’t a Strategy: Why the Iran War Has No Endgame

People clear rubble in a house in the Beryanak District after it was damaged by missile attacks two days before, on March 15, 2026 in Tehran, Iran. The United States and Israel continued their joint attack on Iran that began on February 28. Iran retaliated by firing waves of missiles and drones at Israel, and targeting U.S. allies in the region.

Getty Images, Majid Saeedi

Bravado Isn’t a Strategy: Why the Iran War Has No Endgame

Most of what we have heard from the administration as it pertains to the Iran War is swagger and bro-talk. A few days into the war, the White House released a social media video that combined footage of the bombardment with clips from video games. Not long after, it released a second video, titled “Justice the American Way,” that mixed images of the U.S. military with scenes from movies like Gladiator and Top Gun Maverick.

Speaking to reporters at the Pentagon, War Secretary Pete Hegseth boasted of “death and destruction from the sky all day long.” “They are toast, and they know it,” he said. “This was never meant to be a fair fight... we are punching them while they’re down.”

Keep ReadingShow less
A student in uniform walking through a campus.

A Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) cadet walks through campus November 7, 2003 in Princeton, New Jersey.

Getty Images, Spencer Platt

Hegseth is Dumbing Down the Military (on Purpose)

One day before the United States began an ill-defined and illegal war of indefinite length with Iran, Pete Hegseth angrily attacked a different enemy: the Ivy League. The Secretary of War denounced Ivy League universities as "woke breeding grounds of toxic indoctrination” and then eliminated long-standing college fellowship programs with more than a dozen elite colleges, which had historically served as a pipeline for service members to the upper ranks of military leadership. Of the schools now on Hegseth’s "no-fly list," four sit in the top ten of the World’s Top Universities for 2026. So, why does the Secretary of War not want his armed forces to have the best education available? Because he wants a military without a brain.

For a guy obsessed with being the strongest and most lethal force in the world, cutting access to world-class schools is a bizarre gambit. It does reveal Hegseth doesn’t consider intelligence a factor–let alone an asset–in strength or lethality. That tracks. Hegseth alleges the Ivies infect officers with “globalist and radical ideologies that do not improve our fighting ranks…” God forbid the tip of the sword of our foreign policy has knowledge of international cooperation and global interconnectedness. The Ivy League has its own issues, but the Pentagon’s claim that they "fail to deliver rigorous education grounded in realism” is almost laughable. I’m a veteran Lieutenant Commander with two Ivy League degrees, both paid for with military tuition assistance, and I promise: it was rigorous. Meanwhile, are Hegseth’s performative politics grounded in reality? Attacking Harvard on social media the eve of initiating a new war with a foreign adversary is disgraceful, and even delusional.

Keep ReadingShow less
Are We Prepared for a World Where AI Isn’t at Work?
Person working at a desk with a laptop and books.

Are We Prepared for a World Where AI Isn’t at Work?

Draft an important email without using AI. Write it from scratch — no suggestions, no autocomplete, and no prompt to ChatGPT to compose or revise the email.

Now ask yourself: Did it feel slower? Harder? Slightly uncomfortable?

Keep ReadingShow less