Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Can he do that? Ga. governor, voting rights villain, cancels election.

Brian Kemp

Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp called off a state Supreme Court election and plans to appoint a new justice to the bench.

Kevin C. Cox/Getty Images

It's a startlingly bold move, the legality of which is now being challenged in court: Republican Gov. Brian Kemp, already an enemy of voting rights groups nationwide, has canceled an election and says he'll fill a seat on the Georgia Supreme Court all by himself.

After he won an extremely narrow election in 2018, Kemp's critics said it was entirely because, as secretary of state at the time, he used his power to suppress the vote for Democrat Stacey Abrams by aggressively purging the registration rolls, closing or moving polling stations, rebuffing voters with missing middle initials on their ID cards, and tossing absentee ballots for similarly small bureaucratic mistakes.

Now, the governor has opened himself up to intense criticism that he'd rather stack the state's highest court with another fellow conservative than abide by the spirit (if not the letter) of the law.


When justices leave in the middle of a term, Georgia law permits the governor to fill the vacancy. In this case, however, Justice Keith Blackwell said two weeks ago he was no longer seeking re-election and would resign a few weeks early -- eight months from now, in November.

For a few days, it looked like the race for his spot on the becnch would feature the two remaining candidates: John Barrow of Athens, a former Democratic congressman, and former Republican state legislator Beth Beskin of Atlanta. But a week ago, Kemp's successor as secretary of state, Republican Brad Raffensperger, said he was deferring to the governor's wishes and calling off a contest that was to be decided in the May 19 nonpartisan judicial elections.

Since the governor plans "to fill the created vacancy by appointment," an attorney for the secretary of state wrote the two suddenly vanquished candidates, "our office determined that the most prudent course of action was to cancel."

In response, Barrow and Beskin have filed lawsuits in state court saying Raffensperger had no right to call off the election and Kemp has no right to name a new justice because Blackwell is still on the job.

Barrow said canceling the election amounts to "the ultimate act of voter suppression" by depriving voters of their rights to fill one of the state's top posts.

Blackwell, 44, was put on the high court in 2012 by GOP Gov. Nathan Deal and won election in his own right two years later. But with two children getting ready for college, he said when announcing his resignation, his $175,000 government salary is not enough and he needs to return to private practice.

Of the nine Supreme Court justices, eight were originally put on the bench by appointment. Two justices, Charlie Bethel and Sarah Warren, are still standing for new terms in two months — and, for now at least, Beskin has shifted her sights and is challenging Bethel. But the odds are stacked against her as incumbent judges in Georgia rarely lose elections.

Read More

Hand of a person casting a ballot at a polling station during voting.

Gerrymandering silences communities and distorts elections. Proportional representation offers a proven path to fairer maps and real democracy.

Getty Images, bizoo_n

Gerrymandering Today, Gerrymandering Tomorrow, Gerrymandering Forever

In 1963, Alabama Governor George Wallace declared, "Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever." (Watch the video of his speech.) As a politically aware high school senior, I was shocked by the venom and anger in his voice—the open, defiant embrace of systematic disenfranchisement, so different from the quieter racism I knew growing up outside Boston.

Today, watching politicians openly rig elections, I feel that same disbelief—especially seeing Republican leaders embrace that same systematic approach: gerrymandering now, gerrymandering tomorrow, gerrymandering forever.

Keep ReadingShow less
An oversized ballot box surrounded by people.

Young people worldwide form new parties to reshape politics—yet America’s two-party system blocks them.

Getty Images, J Studios

No Country for Young Politicians—and How To Fix That

In democracies around the world, young people have started new political parties whenever the establishment has sidelined their views or excluded them from policymaking. These parties have sometimes reinvigorated political competition, compelled established parties to take previously neglected issues seriously, or encouraged incumbent leaders to find better ways to include and reach out to young voters.

In Europe, a trio in their twenties started Volt in 2017 as a pan-European response to Brexit, and the party has managed to win seats in the European Parliament and in some national legislatures. In Germany, young people concerned about climate change created Klimaliste, a party committed to limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, as per the Paris Agreement. Although the party hasn’t won seats at the federal level, they have managed to win some municipal elections. In Chile, leaders of the 2011 student protests, who then won seats as independent candidates, created political parties like Revolución Democrática and Convergencia Social to institutionalize their movements. In 2022, one of these former student leaders, Gabriel Boric, became the president of Chile at 36 years old.

Keep ReadingShow less
How To Fix Gerrymandering: A Fair-Share Rule for Congressional Redistricting

Demonstrators gather outside of The United States Supreme Court during an oral arguments in Gill v. Whitford to call for an end to partisan gerrymandering on October 3, 2017 in Washington, DC

Getty Images, Olivier Douliery

How To Fix Gerrymandering: A Fair-Share Rule for Congressional Redistricting

The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield, and government to gain ground. ~ Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Col. Edward Carrington, Paris, 27 May 1788

The Problem We Face

The U.S. House of Representatives was designed as the chamber of Congress most directly tethered to the people. Article I of the Constitution mandates that seats be apportioned among the states according to population and that members face election every two years—design features meant to keep representatives responsive to shifting public sentiment. Unlike the Senate, which prioritizes state sovereignty and representation, the House translates raw population counts into political voice: each House district is to contain roughly the same number of residents, ensuring that every citizen’s vote carries comparable weight. In principle, then, the House serves as the nation’s demographic mirror, channeling the diverse preferences of the electorate into lawmaking and acting as a safeguard against unresponsive or oligarchic governance.

Nationally, the mismatch between the overall popular vote and the partisan split in House seats is small, with less than a 1% tilt. But state-level results tell a different story. Take Connecticut: Democrats hold all five seats despite Republicans winning over 40% of the statewide vote. In Oklahoma, the inverse occurs—Republicans control every seat even though Democrats consistently earn around 40% of the vote.

Keep ReadingShow less
"Vote Here" sign
Voters head to the polls in Minneapolis, one of five Minnesota cities that used ranked-choice voting on Tuesday.
Stephen Maturen/Getty Images

Trump Targets Voting Rights and Suppresses Voting

This essay is part of a series by Lawyers Defending American Democracy where we demonstrate the link between the administration’s sweeping executive actions and their roots in the authoritarian blueprint Project 2025, and show how these actions harm individuals and families throughout the country.

Two months into his second term, President Trump began attacking the most important pillar of our democracy: free and fair elections.

Keep ReadingShow less