Skip to content
Project 2025
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories
Cash in a gas tak

Gas prices up again? What’s going on?

Redistricting

Former felon Erica Racz registering to voting

Florida top court ruling on felon voting is hardly the final word

Yes, the For the People Act would prevent gerrymandering this cycle

Yes, the For the People Act would prevent gerrymandering this cycle

Ed Helms reminds us that gerrymandering is like ... really bad

Damon Effingham
By Damon EffinghamJul 28, 2021
Damon Effingham
See More Writings by author

Effingham is director of federal reform for RepresentUs, a right-left anti-corruption group.

Yes, the For the People Act would prevent gerrymandering this cycle.

However, deadlines are fast approaching.

A recent column made the argument that, if passed, the For the People Act's redistricting reforms wouldn't take effect until 2030. The piece also chastised voting rights and pro-democracy groups for misleading their members and supporters about the bill's impact on this cycle.

The reason RepresentUs and our allies are not telling people this "fact" is because it's not true. The bill dedicates 28 pages exclusively to 2020 redistricting.

It's important that we clear this up because a deadline is fast approaching and the public has to be aware of the stakes. Aug. 16 is the Census Bureau deadline for delivering local-level population data to states — and the date on which gerrymandering can begin.

While there are minor differences in how the For the People Act deals with the 2020 redistricting cycle compared to future cycles, the guidelines are largely similar. In both cases, it bans partisan redistricting, enables independent redistricting commissions and requires a baseline amount of public input. More specifically, under the For the People Act's "criteria for redistricting," the bill says that fair districts will "not favor or disfavor one party or another." RepresentUs published a brief that goes into much more detail on the similarities and differences between how the bill would govern redistricting in the 2020 cycle and future cycles.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Certainly, there are legitimate and urgent concerns about timing. We believe that the For the People Act must be passed by Aug. 16 to have the best chance of curbing partisan gerrymandering this cycle. According to a RepresentUs analysis, 35 states are at high or extreme risk of partisan gerrymandering this cycle, including Florida, North Carolina and Wisconsin. The window to act is closing.

There are many necessary redistricting reforms in the For the People Act, but we believe the nonpartisan redistricting commissions required in the bill should be in place before Aug. 16 to help ensure a fairer process. Other reforms, including the ban on partisan districts, should be in place before state maps are finalized.

In addition to timing, the other legitimate question is what redistricting reforms will end up passing Congress. The For the People Act was filibustered by Senate Republicans in late June, and senators are working on bringing up the bill again in some form. RepresentUs and allies are working hard to make sure that the bill's gerrymandering reforms stay intact, but there is some uncertainty about what would be in a final package.

These concerns aside, there shouldn't be any confusion that the provisions as currently outlined in the For the People Act would reduce the risk of partisan gerrymandering this cycle. And we all should be saying that, loudly and clearly.

Latest news

Read More

People voting

Jessie Harris (left,) a registered independent, casts a ballot at during South Carolina's Republican primary on Feb. 24.

Joe Lamberti for The Washington Post via Getty Images

Our election system is failing independent voters

Gruber is senior vice president of Open Primaries and co-founder of Let Us Vote.

With the race to Election Day entering the homestretch, the Harris and Trump campaigns are in a full out sprint to reach independent voters, knowing full well that independents have been the deciding vote in every presidential contest since the Obama era. And like clockwork every election season, debates are arising about who independent voters are, whether they matter and even whether they actually exist at all.

Lost, perhaps intentionally, in these debates is one undebatable truth: Our electoral system treats the millions of Americans registered as independent voters as second-class citizens by law.

Keep ReadingShow less
People voting
Paul J. Richards/Getty Images

Make safe states matter

Richie is co-founder and senior advisor of FairVote.

It’s time for “safe state” voters to be more than nervous spectators and symbolic participants in presidential elections.

The latest poll averages confirm that the 2024 presidential election will again hinge on seven swing states. Just as in 2020, expect more than 95 percent of major party candidate campaign spending and events to focus on these states. Volunteers will travel there, rather than engage with their neighbors in states that will easily go to Donald Trump or Kamala Harris. The decisions of a few thousand swing state voters will dwarf the importance of those of tens of millions of safe-state Americans.

But our swing-state myopia creates an opportunity. Deprived of the responsibility to influence which candidate will win, safe state voters can embrace the freedom to vote exactly the way they want, including for third-party and independent candidates.

Keep ReadingShow less
Map of the United States

The National EduDemocracy Landscape Map provides a comprehensive overview of where states are approaching democracy reforms within education.

The democracy movement ignores education races at its peril

Dr. Mascareñaz is a leader in the Cornerstone Project, a co-founder of The Open System Institute and chair of the Colorado Community College System State Board.

One of my clearest, earliest memories of talking about politics with my grandfather, who helped the IRS build its earliest computer systems in the 1960s, was asking him how he was voting. He said, “Everyone wants to make it about up here,” he said as gestured high above his head before pointing to the ground. “But the truth is that it’s all down here.” This was Thomas Mascareñaz’s version of “all politics is local” and, to me, essential guidance for a life of community building.

As a leader in The Cornerstone Project and a co-founder of The Open System Institute I've spent lots of time thinking and working at the intersections of education and civic engagement. I've seen firsthand how the democratic process unfolds at all levels — national, statewide, municipal and, crucially, in our schools. It is from this vantage point that I can say, without a shadow of a doubt, that the democracy reform movement will not succeed unless it acts decisively in the field of education.

Keep ReadingShow less
Kamala Harris at the Democratic National Convention

Vice President Kamala Harris closes out the Democratic National Convention on Thursday night.

Liao Pan/China News Service/VCG via Getty Images

The Democrats didn't have a meaningful primary, and no one cared

Lovit is a senior program officer and historian at the Charles F. Kettering Foundation, where he also hosts the podcast "The Context.”

In many respects, last week’s Democratic National Convention was indeed conventional. The party faithful gathered in a basketball arena in Chicago for speeches carefully calibrated to unite factions and define the central messages of the Harris-Walz campaign. It was a ceremony, a celebration and a storyline — just like the Republicans’ convention last month, and many conventions in years past.

For most of American history, party conventions served a different purpose. They were practical meetings where elites hammered out details of the party platform and wrangled over potential nominees. In a political world where party tickets at every level of government were determined in smoke-filled rooms, the convention was the biggest smoke-filled room of them all.

Keep ReadingShow less
© Copyright 2024