Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Redistricting cycle nears completion, but work remains to be done in 4 states

New Hampshire redistricting

New Hampshire is one of two states yet to pass a congressional map.

dk_photos/Getty Images

  • Update: The New York Court of Appeals threw out the state's new congressional map on Wednesday afternoon and ordered a new map to be drawn by a special master. The primary will be delayed.

After Florida enacted a new, controversial congressional map late last week, just two states have yet to complete the redistricting process, although courts have thrown out approved maps in two other states and additional lawsuits are pending around the country.

Legislators in Missouri and New Hampshire have yet to pass new maps to be used for the next decade – even though Republicans control both chambers of the legislature and the governor’s mansion in each state. And a key deadline has already passed in Missouri.

Meanwhile, courts have struck down congressional maps in Kansas and New York.


Unfinished business

While Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis made national headlines by asserting his authority over the redistricting process, New Hampshire Gov. Chris Sununu did the same thing in March but drew far less attention. Perhaps that’s because there is less at stake in New Hampshire (which has two districts split between the parties) than Florida (where DeSantis engineered a map that likely swings four additional seats to the Republican ledger).

Sununu threatened to veto a map approved by the legislature in March and offered his own version that he said would make both districts more competitive. On Tuesday, Republican lawmakers presented a new map that adheres more closely to the original version than Sununu’s proposal, drawing renewed criticism from the governor.

The governor and legislators have until late May to work out a compromise. If they do not, the state Supreme Court will appoint a special master to draw a final map.

The deadline for candidates to file to run in the state is June 10. The primary will be held Sept. 13.

Republicans are at a similar impasse in Missouri, where the chambers have been unable to agree on how big an advantage to give their party for the next decade.

The congressional delegation is currently split 6-2 in favor of the GOP, and the first map passed by the state House in January would have maintained that margin. However, the Senate pushed back and wants to move another seat into the Republican column.

After rounds of negotiations, the Senate passed a new map in late March but the House would not approve it and now the two chambers cannot agree to schedule a conference committee to work out the differences.

The filing deadline was March 29 and the primary is scheduled for July 6. Barring a quick resolution, lawsuits seem likely.

Back to the drawing board

Democratic-controlled New York seemed to have finished its congressional redistricting process Feb. 3, when Gov. Kathy Hochul signed the new map into law. That map was drawn by legislators after a redistricting commission designed to remove elected officials from the process broke down under the weight of partisan fighting.

But two courts determined that the map, which would increase the Democrats’ margin of control in the delegation, is an illegal partisan gerrymander. The state Court of Appeals heard oral arguments on the case Tuesday and could rule this week on whether to reinstate the approved map or to require new lines be drawn.

Three alternative maps have already been submitted – one by the Republican plaintiffs, another from a New York nonprofit and a third by a lawyer.

The candidate filing deadline has already passed (April 7) and the primary is scheduled for June 28.

The new congressional map has also been overturned in Kansas, where a county judge ruled on Monday that the Republican-approved map is unfair to Democrats and people of color and therefore violates the state Constitution. The map, if allowed to stand, would likely increase the GOP’s chances of winning the sole district currently controlled by Democrats.

While the court has ordered legislators to draw a new map, the state attorney general has vowed to appeal the ruling.

The candidate filing deadline is June 1 for the Aug. 2 primary.

Additional lawsuits

On Friday, DeSantis signed the bill to make his congressional map official. That same day, a collection of voting rights organizations and individual voters filed a lawsuit claiming the new district lines violate the state Constitution.

In 2010, Florida voters approved a “Fair District” amendment that empowers minority voters to be able to select their representatives. DeSantis’ map breaks up a district currently represented by Rep. Al Lawson, a Black Democrat. The plaintiffs also argue the map violates state prohibitions on partisan gerrymandering.

A lawsuit is also pending in Ohio, where Democrats are fighting a Republican-approved map. However, that case will not be heard in time to affect the 2022 elections.

A Republican-led lawsuit in New Mexico has become stalled, and a lawyer for the state party recently asked for a judge to be appointed so it can move forward.

The Loyola Law School is tracking these and other lawsuits.

Read More

news app
New platforms help overcome biased news reporting
Tero Vesalainen/Getty Images

The Selective Sanctity of Death: When Empathy Depends on Skin Color

Rampant calls to avoid sharing the video of Charlie Kirk’s death have been swift and emphatic across social media. “We need to keep our souls clean,” journalists plead. “Where are social media’s content moderators?” “How did we get so desensitized?” The moral outrage is palpable; the demands for human dignity urgent and clear.

But as a Black woman who has been forced to witness the constant virality of Black death, I must ask: where was this widespread anger for George Floyd? For Philando Castile? For Daunte Wright? For Tyre Nichols?

Keep ReadingShow less
Following Jefferson: Promoting Inter-Generational Understanding Through Constitution-Making
Mount Rushmore
Photo by John Bakator on Unsplash

Following Jefferson: Promoting Inter-Generational Understanding Through Constitution-Making

No one can denounce the New York Yankee fan for boasting that her favorite ballclub has won more World Series championships than any other. At 27 titles, the Bronx Bombers claim more than twice their closest competitor.

No one can question admirers of the late, great Chick Corea, or the equally astonishing Alison Krauss, for their virtually unrivaled Grammy victories. At 27 gold statues, only Beyoncé and Quincy Jones have more in the popular categories.

Keep ReadingShow less
A close up of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement badge.

Trump’s mass deportations promise security but deliver economic pain, family separation, and chaos. Here’s why this policy is failing America.

Getty Images, Tennessee Witney

The Cruel Arithmetic of Trump’s Immigration Crackdown

As summer 2025 winds down, the Trump administration’s deportation machine is operating at full throttle—removing over one million people in six months and fulfilling a campaign promise to launch the “largest deportation operation in American history.” For supporters, this is a victory lap for law and order. For the rest of the lot, it’s a costly illusion—one that trades complexity for spectacle and security for chaos.

Let’s dispense with the fantasy first. The administration insists that mass deportations will save billions, reduce crime, and protect American jobs. But like most political magic tricks, the numbers vanish under scrutiny. The Economic Policy Institute warns that this policy could destroy millions of jobs—not just for immigrants but for U.S.-born workers in sectors like construction, elder care, and child care. That’s not just a fiscal cliff—it is fewer teachers, fewer caregivers, and fewer homes built. It is inflation with a human face. In fact, child care alone could shrink by over 15%, leaving working parents stranded and employers scrambling.

Meanwhile, the Peterson Institute projects a drop in GDP and employment, while the Penn Wharton School’s Budget Model estimates that deporting unauthorized workers over a decade would slash Social Security revenue and inflate deficits by nearly $900 billion. That’s not a typo. It’s a fiscal cliff dressed up as border security.

And then there’s food. Deporting farmworkers doesn’t just leave fields fallow—it drives up prices. Analysts predict a 10% spike in food costs, compounding inflation and squeezing families already living paycheck to paycheck. In California, where immigrant renters are disproportionately affected, eviction rates are climbing. The Urban Institute warns that deportations are deepening the housing crisis by gutting the construction workforce. So much for protecting American livelihoods.

But the real cost isn’t measured in dollars. It’s measured in broken families, empty classrooms, and quiet despair. The administration has deployed 10,000 armed service members to the border and ramped up “self-deportation” tactics—policies so harsh they force people to leave voluntarily. The result: Children skipping meals because their parents fear applying for food assistance; Cancer patients deported mid-treatment; and LGBTQ+ youth losing access to mental health care. The Human Rights Watch calls it a “crueler world for immigrants.” That’s putting it mildly.

This isn’t targeted enforcement. It’s a dragnet. Green card holders, long-term residents, and asylum seekers are swept up alongside undocumented workers. Viral videos show ICE raids at schools, hospitals, and churches. Lawsuits are piling up. And the chilling effect is real: immigrant communities are retreating from public life, afraid to report crimes or seek help. That’s not safety. That’s silence. Legal scholars warn that the administration’s tactics—raids at schools, churches, and hospitals—may violate Fourth Amendment protections and due process norms.

Even the administration’s security claims are shaky. Yes, border crossings are down—by about 60%, thanks to policies like “Remain in Mexico.” But deportation numbers haven’t met the promised scale. The Migration Policy Institute notes that monthly averages hover around 14,500, far below the millions touted. And the root causes of undocumented immigration—like visa overstays, which account for 60% of cases—remain untouched.

Crime reduction? Also murky. FBI data shows declines in some areas, but experts attribute this more to economic trends than immigration enforcement. In fact, fear in immigrant communities may be making things worse. When people won’t talk to the police, crimes go unreported. That’s not justice. That’s dysfunction.

Public opinion is catching up. In February, 59% of Americans supported mass deportations. By July, that number had cratered. Gallup reports a 25-point drop in favor of immigration cuts. The Pew Research Center finds that 75% of Democrats—and a growing number of independents—think the policy goes too far. Even Trump-friendly voices like Joe Rogan are balking, calling raids on “construction workers and gardeners” a betrayal of common sense.

On social media, the backlash is swift. Users on X (formerly Twitter) call the policy “ineffective,” “manipulative,” and “theater.” And they’re not wrong. This isn’t about solving immigration. It’s about staging a show—one where fear plays the villain and facts are the understudy.

The White House insists this is what voters wanted. But a narrow electoral win isn’t a blank check for policies that harm the economy and fray the social fabric. Alternatives exist: Targeted enforcement focused on violent offenders; visa reform to address overstays; and legal pathways to fill labor gaps. These aren’t radical ideas—they’re pragmatic ones. And they don’t require tearing families apart to work.

Trump’s deportation blitz is a mirage. It promises safety but delivers instability. It claims to protect jobs but undermines the very sectors that keep the country running. It speaks the language of law and order but acts with the recklessness of a demolition crew. Alternatives exist—and they work. Cities that focus on community policing and legal pathways report higher public safety and stronger economies. Reform doesn’t require cruelty. It requires courage.

Keep ReadingShow less
Multi-colored speech bubbles overlapping.

Stanford’s Strengthening Democracy Challenge shows a key way to reduce political violence: reveal that most Americans reject it.

Getty Images, MirageC

In the Aftermath of Assassinations, Let’s Show That Americans Overwhelmingly Disapprove of Political Violence

In the aftermath of Charlie Kirk’s assassination—and the assassination of Minnesota state legislator Melissa Hortman only three months ago—questions inevitably arise about how to reduce the likelihood of similar heinous actions.

Results from arguably the most important study focused on the U.S. context, the Strengthening Democracy Challenge run by Stanford University, point to one straightforward answer: show people that very few in the other party support political violence. This approach has been shown to reduce support for political violence.

Keep ReadingShow less