"Why and Why Not" podcast host Brad Fallon welcomes guest Dr. Stephen Medvic, Author of Gerrymandering: The Politics of Redistricting in the United States, for an in-depth look at gerrymandering.
This funny-sounding word gets scorn from both major political parties, yet we have more gerrymandered maps than ever. So how'd we get here and what could we do about it?
In Part One, Pat Merloe explored the impact of the political environment, the need for constitutional defense against power-grabbing, and the malign effects of proof of citizenship on voting.
In the second part of the three-part series, Merloe explores the harmful effects of Executive Orders, the reversal of the Justice Department on voting rights, and the effects of political retribution.
As noted in Part One of this series, while some would like us to believe that “all’s quiet on the election front”, multipoint attacks against trustworthy elections are underway with just 17 months until 2026’s voting and less time before off-year elections this November. Awareness of the attacks – and those fortifying trustworthy processes – is crucial for defending democracy. The arenas described below are among the active electoral battlefields.
Unless we mount an effective defense of trustworthy elections and broader democracy, Donald Trump’s prediction that “We’ll have it fixed so good, you're not going to have to vote” could become reality. Determining how to join in that defense is a responsibility of democratic citizenship.
Harmful Effects of Executive Order 14248 Beyond Proof of Citizenship
Cynically, EO 14248 does not seek to prevent voter suppression tactics. However, consistent with the irrational MAGA campaign against mailed ballots, the Order negates the states’ electoral power by imposing a national requirement that all mailed ballots must be received by election day. Ballots postmarked by Election Day but received later are counted in 17 states and Washington, D.C. More than 100,000 voters could be affected if the restriction stands, and large numbers of valid ballots could be voided simply due to mail delays. That could affect electoral outcomes up and down the ballot.
The Order includes a dangerous and unworkable instruction that the federal Electoral Assistance Commission (EAC) amend its Voluntary Voting Systems Guideline, apparently in light of certain Big Lie conspiracy theories about voting machines. The EAC is acting on that instruction. It requires all voting systems certified by the FEC for the state’s use to be re-certified within the impracticable period of 180 days. That could mean a mass of voting machines not being certified by election day, which could be used as a pretext for election bashing or possibly interfering in the certification of election results.
Voting system security is also being compromised by mass layoffs at the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), a component of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and by CISA cutting a range of programs that support elections. That includes CISA’s efforts to help secure voting systems and share information with state election officials about foreign and domestic cyber threats, all deemed important by the National Association of Secretaries of State (NASS). Additionally, in February, the Department of Justice (DOJ) disbanded the Foreign Influence Task Force, which heightens vulnerabilities that state officials are ill-equipped to address.
The Trump Administration is also cutting federal grants to document incidence and impacts of misinformation and disinformation, which will further undermine information integrity in the electoral environment. As AI advances continue, dismantling information safeguards will contribute to confusion and distrust even as further protections are needed. The Campaign Legal Center (CLC) and Brennan Center are among those engaging on that subject.
Privacy Offenses Demand Greater Attention
Citizen privacy rights have not been addressed in court rulings on EO 14248 or other election-related actions of the Administration. The Order variously instructs the Social Security Administration, State Department, and DHS to make information from their databases available to state officials and local officials for verifying the citizenship or immigration status of those who registered or are registering to vote.
Plus, the Order instructs DHS – in coordination with DOGE – to review each state’s publicly available voter registry and voter list maintenance activities alongside federal immigration databases. And, for DHS to report, within 90 days, complete information to the Attorney General and state and local officials on all foreign nationals who indicated on an immigration form that they have registered or voted in federal or state elections. Concern about errors and potential misuse is warranted, given DOGE’s other identity data mining activities. Democracy Forward, the Center for Democracy & Technology, and others are challenging attacks on privacy rights.
It is challenging to ensure citizens’ privacy in such broad actions. There is apparently at least one example of a DHS official already briefing a leading MAGA group about how to use federally collected data as part of its efforts to investigate voter lists. That illustrates the intersection of elements of the MAGA elections project.
Conversion of DOJ Voting Rights Efforts and Targeting Truth Tellers
A crucial part of the MAGA elections project is evident in developments at the Justice Department, including the Civil Rights Division and its Voting Rights Section. Changes in leadership, line managers, and mission statements, accompanied by the dismissal of prior cases seeking to protect voting rights, demonstrate a shift in both words and actions.
The conversion includes prioritizing EO 14248 and applying pressure to election administrators in certain states, including Arizona, North Carolina, and Oregon —all battleground jurisdictions. Colorado and Pennsylvania recently received a troublesome DOJ election data request, which poses burdens on those states. DOJ joined the defense of Wyoming’s proof of citizenship and proof of residency requirement, among other actions, to burden voting.
New DOJ initiatives established by US Attorney's offices, including investigations and task forces focused on election issues, also reflect this change. President Trump’s recent call for the appointment of a Special Prosecutor to investigate what he falsely claims as the fraudulent 2020 presidential election adds a further threat to election officials and judges who ruled against MAGA's fabricated challenges to that election. Rumblings that the DOJ is exploring the possibility of bringing criminal charges against state and local election officials are also threatening.
Political retribution that threatens past and future truth tellers is another part of the MAGA election plan. The targeting by Presidential order of former Trump-appointed CISA Director Christopher Krebs is obvious retribution for Krebs reporting that the 2020 presidential election was trustworthy. The order calls for an investigation into Krebs and instructs that security clearances be suspended for all persons associated with him, including those at his current workplace.
The personal targeting of Christopher Krebs fires a warning shot at federal, state, and local election officials who are called upon to tell the truth about elections, even when it means a MAGA loss is real. Election officials at all levels continue to face extraordinary stresses from accusations and threats. Many states have enacted laws to protect them from threats of violence, although 15 states still require legislative action. Enforcement of such protections is a challenge, and the threat of political retribution adds another layer of complexity. The Center for Election Innovation and Research (CEIR) and Issue One are among those defending election officials.
Several presidential Executive Orders target law firms that have represented Donald Trump’s electoral opponents and that offer assistance to voting rights initiatives. While courts have ruled against some of the law firm's EOs, they harm the electoral and broader political environment. The American Bar Association (ABA) filed a federal lawsuit against the Administration’s “deliberate policy designed to intimidate and coerce law firms and lawyers to refrain from challenging the President or his Administration in court, or from even speaking publicly in support of policies or causes that the President does not like.” Various law firms and organizations, including the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), are also fighting such EOs, though more may well be issued.
The MAGA barrage against the rule of law includes mining the field of electoral justice. Part Three of this series addresses attacks on the courts and additional challenges to the principle of universal and equal suffrage, which is essential to trustworthy elections.
Part Three will examine the impact of attacks on the courts and the necessity of defending universal and equal suffrage.
Pat Merloe provides strategic advice to groups focused on democracy and trustworthy elections in the U.S. and internationally.
In Part 1, Pat Merloe examines the impact of the political environment, the necessity of constitutional defense against power-grabbing, and the detrimental effects of proof of citizenship on voting.
The intense MAGA barrage against genuine elections, leading up to 2024’s voting, paused briefly after Election Day - not because there was diminished MAGA hostility towards typically trustworthy processes and results, but mainly because Donald Trump won. Much valuable work took place to protect last year’s polls, and much more will be needed as we head toward 2026, 2028, and beyond.
While some would like us to believe that “all’s quiet on the election front”, multipoint attacks are underway with just 17 months until 2026’s voting and less time before off-year elections this November. Awareness of the attacks – and those fortifying trustworthy processes – is crucial for defending democracy.
While Donald Trump’s July 2024 statement may not be a MAGA roadmap, it remains a threat to free and fair elections that should be heeded: “We’ll have it fixed so good, you're not going to have to vote”. Just as there was Project 2025, we can be certain that there is a project to maintain and expand power by “fixing” elections or perhaps even keeping power despite them.
American elections are taking place in an increasingly bellicose political environment, amid a presidential power grab. The deployment of military troops to Los Angeles despite opposition from its Mayor and Governor, threats to use “very big force” against protests of Trumps’ June 14th military parade, and tactics used in stepped up immigration raids in cities aimed to break Democratic power centers portend a more confrontational atmosphere as the summer and pre-election periods develop.
Power grabbing includes: subverting judicial and congressional checks and balances; prodding for an anti-constitutional third presidential term; pressuring news media, law firms, judges, and universities to tow the line politically; issuing executive orders that undermine trustworthy elections; as well as targeting political “enemies”. Such enemies encompass officials who told the truth about the 2020 presidential election and others currently working to protect voting rights.
Those factors are mixing with five years of Big-Lie propaganda claiming that the 2020 presidential race was stolen – a fabrication that is still being propagated, including by people in key roles in the Administration. Repeating the falsehood is part of justifying current actions and softening the ground for false claims about future MAGA election losses.
Added to the mix is hype around the fiction that voting by non-citizens is a significant threat that warrants overly burdensome proof of citizenship and other barriers to exercising voting rights. Such barriers are incorporated into the SAVE Act, state bills, and EO 14248, the presidential executive order on elections. MAGA-related groups like True The Vote and Election Integrity Network are using such issues to develop local organizations that are advocating for voting barriers and questioning electoral processes. Plus, election officials continue to face harassment and threats, as are many judges.
In short, we are living in a distressed election environment that is under siege and in need of reinforcements. That includes robust, honest journalism, truthful sources speaking out across social and other digital platforms, community forums that bridge divides where possible, and broad citizen engagement. Fortunately, there are such efforts that merit attention and support.
Irrespective of notable shortcomings in the electoral arena, the U.S. Constitution protects against the presidential usurpation of electoral powers. Article I, Section 4 is explicit: “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations.…”
There is no constitutional role for a president to dictate electoral rules, and Article II’s definition of a president’s powers requires an oath to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States,” not subvert it under the pretext of executing laws passed by Congress or to address fabricated crises.
Yet, President Trump has done just that and will likely try to dictate more rules favoring MAGA power – and MAGA congressional actions, such as those through the SAVE Act or otherwise, could clear the way.
President Trump’s Executive Order 14248, ironically titled “Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of Elections”, overrides constitutional powers provided to the states and Congress. It offends the principle of universal and equal suffrage by creating unwarranted barriers to voting in person and by mail, requires unworkable electoral administration actions, breaches citizen privacy rights, and mobilizes the Department of Justice (DOJ) for political advantage. It thus illustrates important elements of the MAGA elections project.
The Order overlooks that the Federal Election Assistance Commission (EAC) is an independent body established by Congress as a nonpartisan entity. An earlier Executive Order (14215) claims the power to negate the independence of agencies like the EAC, Federal Election Commission (FEC), and Federal Communications Commission (FCC), which also has an electoral impact. And, the Supreme Court’s decision in Kennedy v. Braidwood Management could also undermine their independence. In addition, the FEC’s federal campaign finance oversight role is also being obstructed by an orchestrated quorum deficiency.
If the EAC and other independent agencies created by Congress are allowed to become political tools of the presidency, future Executive Orders could easily be issued to tilt the electoral playing field or even interfere in determining election results. Court actions to limit such orders would be curtailed if the MAGA congressional agenda is enacted. Plus, the power of lower federal courts to restrain such actions was severely limited by the recent Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v CASA. At the outer edge of the interference spectrum, declaring emergencies and deploying military force to protect those “performing federal functions” should such vaguely defined actions become normalized.
Attorneys general from 19 states are suing in federal court seeking to block many provisions of EO 14248. On June 13, the court issued a preliminary injunction against five subsections of the EO, though several harmful provisions of the EO remain unaddressed. Two of the subsections addressed concerned proof of citizenship, which a different court also enjoined. The ruling restrained three other provisions: a constraint on military voting; the US Attorney General enforcing the EO’s Election Day mail ballot deadline; and instruction to the EAC to condition funding to states on their accepting that deadline (though EO Section 4(a) on withholding EAC funding was not addressed).
While further proceedings and appeals will follow, the suit illustrates the importance of attorneys general in defending constitutional protections. That role is heightened by Trump v. CASA decision, which restricts lower federal courts from issuing universal (i.e., nationwide) preliminary injunctions except in very limited circumstances where “complete relief” is necessary for the specific parties to the case (e.g., to states that are plaintiffs) or broad relief is gained through class action cases that are expensive and slow moving. The impact of the CASA decision in the election arena, where swift court action is crucial, could be detrimental.
Section 2(a) of EO 14248 instructs the EAC to modify its national mail voter registration form to include documented proof of citizenship, which would unnecessarily block large numbers of eligible voters from registering and burden state and local officials with onerous record-keeping of details. The EO’s acceptable documents only include a US passport, Real ID, or a military, state, or federal photo ID that indicates US citizenship. According to the State Department’s 2024 data, just under 50% of the total US population holds a valid passport, and this percentage applies to voters, excluding duplicate holders and children.
The list does not include a birth certificate, which is often the basis for the listed IDs, thus manufacturing a likely two-stage process. Obtaining a government-certified birth certificate itself can be expensive and time-consuming, and thus can be a voting barrier to potentially millions of people. Such barriers particularly affect young people and minority communities.
The Order’s Section 2(d) requires federal agencies like the Department of Defense, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and the Department of the Interior to assess citizenship before providing the federal voter registration form to persons in public assistance programs.
State officials would need to modify voter registration databases and take other measures within an unrealistic timeframe to comply with using the revised federal registration form. The Order also requires the FEC to cut funding to states that do not, among other matters, use the form, though Congress authorized such funding.
The proof of citizenship requirements in Sections 2(a) and (d) were preliminarily enjoined by a federal court ruling in response to a suit brought by the League of Latin American Citizens (LULAC), League of Women Voters, Democratic National Committee, and others. This ruling will also now work its way through further hearings and appeals in light of the Trump v. CASA ruling, while federal and state legislative proof-of-citizenship requirements remain part of the electoral battlefield.
The SAVE Act – which may soon come to a Senate vote – does many of the same things as EO 14248, including codifying proof of citizenship for voting and putting unrealistic, unfunded demands on election officials. Plus, the right-wing American Legislative Exchange Council’s (ALEC) new Process and Procedures Taskforce is promoting to state legislatures the SAVE Act and other voting restrictions, as are efforts like the August 2025 “Only Citizens Vote Month” lobbying campaign by the Tea Party Patriots. Countering such efforts through education and mobilization are pro-voter organizations, including the Brennan Center, IssueOne, the Center for American Progress (CAP), and VoteRiders.
The MAGA election attacks are also being launched on other fronts. Some spring from additional provisions of EO 14248. The salvos entail weaponizing the Justice Department, including its Voting Rights Section, as well as assaults on the courts and other facets of trustworthy elections, which are explored in parts two and three of this series. They emphasize the urgency of building an effective defensive effort that requires taking a position on the ramparts.
Part Two, which will be published on Saturday, July 12, examines the detrimental effects of Executive Orders, the reversal of the Justice Department's stance on voting rights, and the consequences of political retribution.
Pat Merloe provides strategic advice to groups focused on democracy and trustworthy elections in the U.S. and internationally.
Open primaries create fine opportunities for citizens who are registered as independents or unaffiliated voters to vote for either Democrats or Republicans in primary elections, but they tacitly undermine the mission of those independents who are opposed to both major parties by luring them into establishment electoral politics. Indeed, independents who are tempted to support independent candidates or an independent political movement can be converted to advocates of our duopoly if their states have one form or another of Open Primaries.
Twenty U.S. states currently have Open Primaries for at least one political party at the presidential, congressional, and state levels, including Georgia, Illinois, Minnesota, Ohio, South Carolina, Texas, and Wisconsin. At least 15 states conduct "semi-closed" primaries, a middle position in which unaffiliated voters still have an option to choose to vote in one of the major party primaries.
There are admittedly different kinds of independent or unaffiliated voters. Some individuals essentially support our political system but are not consistently aligned with either the Democratic or Republican camps. Sometimes they vote for Democrats, and at other times, they vote for Republicans. Many are moderates, which explains why they might vote Democratic in one election or split their votes between Democratic and Republican candidates in a general election. In contrast, many independents are dissatisfied with both major parties and seek either a centrist political party or candidates who are more left-wing than most Democrats or more right-wing than most Republicans.
According to Thom Reilly, Jacqueline Salit, and Omar Ali in their book, The Independent Voter, most independents are anti-establishment and not ideologically aligned with either centrists, socialists, or libertarians. They are definitely not chiefly centrists or moderates, although many certainly are. Over 40% of all voters, according to Gallup surveys for over 10 years, do not identify with either major party.
It would be unfair to independents who are happy voting for Democrats and Republicans and not being committed to either party to discourage the passage of state laws that would create Open Primaries. At the same time, anti-establishment independents should not succumb to the temptation to vote for Democrats or Republicans if they are extremely dissatisfied and disillusioned with both parties, believing that establishment politics denies nearly half the public representation in Washington.
Reilly, Salit and Ali argue that most independents have a "mind-set" which sets them in opposition to our two party system, which is extremely polarized and fails to address many of the hard issues facing the country: climate change, the national debt, immigration, gun control, racial relations, child care and paid parental and medical leave, energy, and more.
There are other electoral reforms that are not biased in favor of our two-party system, notably ranked choice voting and impartial redistricting commissions. Each of these policies enables independent candidates for office to increase their chances of victory. With ranked choice voting (Maine uses this election mechanism, as do various counties and cities), independent centrists may ultimately surpass left-wing or right-wing candidates for office in a congressional primary.
An impartial redistricting commission can reduce the chances that extremist members of either party win their primaries because the individual districts will not be gerrymandered to make it nearly impossible for an independent, especially a centrist independent, to win a primary. Very red states and very blue states are well-known for having highly gerrymandered districts.
The Open Primary topic is much more complicated and provides a prism through which to conceptualize the tension within the entire group of independents in the United States.
There is no one block of independents. Over 60 million registered voters are classified as independents or unaffiliated voters, and they are divided between the pro-establishment and anti-establishment camps. Of the 80 million citizens who are eligible to vote but not registered to vote, approximately 30 million are also independents.
Is there a solution to this tension for independents in the United States? No, there is no solution. It is, however, important to recognize and understand the tension. Some observations may prove useful.
First, it is unlikely that either strategy can be dismantled.
Second, both paths will be pursued by independents, namely the path of fighting closed primaries and the path of supporting independent candidates for office, as well as an independent political movement.
Third, the first path may serve as a stepping stone to the second, but it is impossible to choreograph this process in advance. It definitely would not be a linear process.
Dave Anderson edited "Leveraging: A Political, Economic and Societal Framework," has taught at five universities and ran for the Democratic nomination for a Maryland congressional seat in 2016.
As New York prepares to choose its next city council and mayor in primaries this week, it’s worth remembering that the road to gender equality in the nation’s largest city has been long and slow.
Before 2021, New York’s 51-member council had always been majority male. Women hadn’t even gotten close to a majority. The best showing had been 18 seats, just a tick above 35 percent.
That all changed with ranked choice voting (RCV). In 2021, voters elected not only a women-majority council but nearly doubled the previous high, with 31 seats.
RCV helped make the difference. Why is this? Research finds that women have better opportunities to run and win ranked choice elections. More women can jump into the race without fear of splitting the vote with one another—and without being told to “wait their turn.”
It’s not just New York. In 2024, St. Paul, Minn., made history with an all-female city council—a first for the Minnesota state capital, but also, experts said, for any major U.S. city. In addition, all seven women were under 40. Six out of the seven councilors elected were women of color.
Whether in red Utah and Alaska, blue California, or purple Minnesota, the results were uniform: as cities introduced ranked choice voting, more women ran and won, and states and localities that had never before come close to gender equity now approached or surpassed it. In 2024, Alaska elected more women than men to its state legislature for the very first time.
In the roughly dozen Utah cities that have used RCV to elect councils, the number of seats held by women has soared to 40 percent. In Portland, Oregon, which used a proportional form of ranked choice voting for the first time in 2024, the city council seems to reflect the city in every way, including gender balance. Oakland elected its first woman mayor using RCV in 2010—then its second, then its third, and, just this April, the city elected Barbara Lee, its fourth woman mayor in a row, all elected with RCV.
By January 2024, of the 41 cities that held ranked choice elections, women held 53 percent of the council seats, according to research from RepresentWomen. In contrast, in the 100 largest cities in America, women held only a third.
Ranked choice voting works because it delivers more voice, more choice, and more representative outcomes. Voters crave choice in elections. But the reality of many candidates in a single-choice election is a giant headache. Voters have the nearly impossible task of trying to determine whether their favorite candidate has a chance to win or whether they should vote for someone they liked well enough who might be polling a little better.
Meanwhile, candidates elbow each other out of the race—fearing the vote will otherwise be split among ideologically or demographically similar options. The loser? As we’ve learned from conversations with leaders in New York and across the country, it’s most often women—or candidates of color—who are told to “wait their turn.” Candidates get picked in back rooms, not by voters.
Ranked choice voting fixes this. Instead of voting for one candidate, voters have the power to rank their top picks: first, second, third, and so on. If someone earns 50 percent, they win, like any other election. If not, the lowest finishers are dropped; if you ranked them first, your vote counts for your next choice. This continues until someone reaches a majority. Suddenly, all those choices become a good thing, and vote-splitting and “spoilers” become a thing of the past.
What we see in New York is that these election rules encourage candidates to campaign differently. When you can’t win with just your base, you need to talk to everyone throughout the city. Instead of attacking your opponents, you work to be their supporters’ second choice. Multiple candidates with similar perspectives ask voters to rank all of them. Newspapers issue ranked endorsements.
Voters have taken advantage of this extra voice. In the 2021 mayoral primary, 87 percent of voters ranked at least two candidates. Most of those who decided not to rank did so because they only liked one candidate.
In New York, glass ceilings shattered everywhere. Crystal Hudson and Kristin Richardson Jordan became the first openly gay Black women on the council. Julie Won and Linda Lee were elected as the first two Korean-American members. Voters also selected Shahana Hanif, the first Muslim woman; Jennifer Gutiérrez, the first Colombian American; and Sandra Ung, the daughter of Cambodian refugees.
The increase in women’s representation is important on its own but even more so because it has led to tangible progress on issues that are often ignored. Women council members have led legislation to expand child care programs, study and address maternal mortality, take on pay inequities within the city workforce, and stop price gouging on baby formula.
For many, New York’s upcoming primary is about the mayoralty and whether former Governor Andrew Cuomo can mount a political comeback. But, perhaps, what’s really on display is the transformational fairness that’s possible once RCV allows a wider range of candidates to run without any fear of splitting the vote.
Those looking to spot the next rising stars and groundbreakers in Democratic politics might keep a close eye on New York City’s primary elections later this week. The nation has still never elected a woman president. The numbers are not much better in state government, where women hold just under 30 percent of state legislative seats and elected statewide offices. City councils with RCV however show how we drive genuine progress.
Fix the rules, hand voters the tools—and suddenly real equity comes into focus.
Cynthia Richie Terrell is the executive director of RepresentWomen, which advances women's representation by researching, understanding, and then championing the evidence-based solutions that break down structural barriers to women’s political leadership.
Ebonie Simpson is the executive director of The New Majority NYC, a nonprofit organization dedicated to building political power for all women.
Gerrymandering (Not as fun as it is to say) - Why and Why Not
