"Why and Why Not" podcast host Brad Fallon welcomes guest Dr. Stephen Medvic, Author ofGerrymandering: 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?
Fisher is senior director of policy and partnerships for Unite America. Macomber is research manager for Unite America .
Whichever party wins independent voters will win the presidency and other key races this fall. A poll we at Unite America commissioned earlier this year provides clues for how Democrats and Republicans can appeal to these swing voters — including embracing their right to participate in all primary elections. Nearly 90 percent of independent voters from closed primary states support opening primaries, and nearly 60 percent said they would be more likely to vote for a party that pledged to support their right to vote in primaries.
A new bipartisan bill in Congress gives the parties a golden opportunity to do just that. The Let America Vote Act would immediately end closed primaries for congressional and presidential elections, while also providing financial incentives to states that enfranchise independents in state and local primaries. Currently, 15 states have closed congressional primaries, and 22 states have closed presidential primaries.
If passed, the Let America Vote Act would grant 23.5 million independent voters the same voting rights as registered Republicans and Democrats. According to Gallup’s most recent polling, a record high 51 percent of American adults identify as independents — more than the two major parties combined.
Simply providing lip service to a new bill is not enough, however. The two major parties must also understand why a rapidly growing share of voters choose to be independent in the first place. According to our first-of-its-kind report and poll of independents from closed primary states, there are four key reasons they do not affiliate with either party.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
In sum, independents are persuadable voters with nuanced policy positions who are frustrated by both the political system and the two parties that lead it. Passing the Let America Vote Act and opening all states’ primaries to independents would incentivize members of Congress to represent the views of independent voters while in office, and not allow them to just be an afterthought during election season. Without reform, though, the major parties will likely continue to struggle to appeal to independents, and voters will continue to abandon the parties.
Christine Gibbons has relied on the Election Official Legal Defense Network to help fight what she says was an unwarranted dismissal from her job as registrar of Lynchburg, Va.
Nevins is co-publisher of The Fulcrum and co-founder and board chairman of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.
Since 2020, election officials across the country have endured threats, harassment, intimidation, defamation and, in some states, exposure to criminal penalties, for simply doing their jobs of administering fair elections.
In this highly contentious environment, the Election Official Legal Defense Network serves an invaluable function of connecting election officials in need to qualified, pro bono attorneys who can provide advice or assistance.
EOLDN is a project of the Center for Election Innovation & Research, whose mission is to restore trust in the American election system and promote election procedures that encourage participation while ensuring election integrity and security.
One example of many election officials that EOLDN supports is former Lynchburg, Va., Registrar Christine Gibbons, who has endured multiple baseless claims of corruption and harassment since the 2022 election. She even woke up to a sign in her yard one morning that read, “Christine Gibbons Belongs in Jail. #LockHerUp. Resign Now.” Despite this harassment Gibbons nonetheless worked every day to administer fair and transparent elections in her county.
Despite Gibbons’ dedication, in 2023 the newly Republican-controlled Lynchburg Election Board informed her that she would not be reappointed to her position as registrar. In Virginia, registrars are traditionally reappointed as long as they maintain positive performance reviews.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
When the board declined to reappoint her, Gibbons considered her options. As she told Washington Lawyer, “Friends told me that maybe I should walk away, but I didn’t feel right about walking away because I know I did everything possible and within the law to ensure the integrity of our elections.”
When Gibbons decided she needed an attorney, she reached out to EOLDN for pro bono legal support and soon was on the phone with Stephen Pershing of Kalijarvi, Chuzi, Newman & Fitch, P.C. Pershing agreed to represent Gibbons in her lawsuit to be reinstated as registrar. Pershing said he believes EOLDN’s work is crucial to giving “nonpartisan election officials a way to fight back against hostile partisan takeovers of their functions.”
Gibbons, who has had to work as a substitute teacher to support her family, expressed her gratitude that EOLDN was able to match her with a pro bono attorney, saying, “I don’t know if I would have been able to sustain the case on my own.”
The issues that confront election workers are many. Some of the questions that election workers ask EOLDN attorney’s relate to:
Faith and trust in our elections is essential for the well-being of a democratic republic. Election workers are critical to the functioning of our democracy. In today’s contentious and partisan political climate it is critical that the work of election workers is protected.
Sadly, as partisanship and rhetoric have heated up in America, so have the threats. As citizens and patriots, we need to stand by our principles, our institutions and our fellow citizens. We cannot allow threats and harassment against election officials to undermine safe and fair elections.
In the coming months The Fulcrum will continue to report on all aspects of the election process, including the many intricacies of election law and procedures, so Americans can trust the results of the election whether their candidate wins or loses.
Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris and her running mate, Tim Walz take the stage at a campaign rally in Philadelphia on Aug. 6.
Gorrell is an advocate for the deaf’s rights, a former Republican Party election statistician, and a longtime congressional aide.
Supporters of gerrymandering reform are wondering whether Vice President Kamala Harris and her running mate, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, will support the Fair and Impartial Redistricting for Meaningful and Accountable Political Systems Act.
Democratic Rep. Wiley Nickel's bill, more commonly known as the FAIR MAPS Act, "requires States to carry out congressional redistricting in accordance with a redistricting plan developed by an independent redistricting commission."
This legislation is similar to a bill Democratic Rep. Zoe Lofgren (Calif.) introduced in eight consecutive Congresses, from 2005 to 2020, to stop gerrymandering by enabling each state to establish an independent redistricting commission. It died in committee each time because it lacked adequate support from the Democratic leadership to advance.
Despite Harris’ connection with former Attorney General Eric Holder, it is still unclear where she stands on true nonpartisan gerrymandering reform
Holder now chairs the National Democratic Redistricting Committee, which describes itself as "the centralized hub for executing a comprehensive redistricting strategy that shifts the redistricting power, creating fair districts where Democrats can compete." He claims that his program's purpose is to combat gerrymandering, but Republicans have long claimed that the independent redistricting commission wants to draw maps in favor of Democrats.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
According to IRS filings, the organization aims to "build a comprehensive plan to favorably position Democrats for the redistricting process through 2022."
After being assigned by President Joe Biden to lead efforts to pass voting rights legislation on June 1, 2021, Vice President Harris issued a Statement on the Administration's Voting Rights Efforts, which did not mention gerrymandering or redistricting.
In November 2000, Arizona voters passed a citizen initiative that amended the state Constitution by removing the power to draw congressional and state legislative districts from the Legislature and reassigning the task to an independent redistricting commission. In November 2008, California voters passed a similar proposition authorizing a state redistricting commission. In 2015, the Arizona commission was sued by its Legislature, and Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, went to the Supreme Court. The IRC attorney asked Harris, then California’s attorney general, to file a friend-of-the-court brief. She ducked the request. But what if she had agreed to join the effort?
Since arriving on Capitol Hill as a junior senator in 2017, Harris has yet to show interest in ending partisan gerrymandering and establishing an independent redistricting commission in all states, despite her strong advocacy on voting rights.
The same can be said for Walz. As governor, he signed a law ending prison gerrymandering last year, but he has made no statement responding to state House Majority Leader Jamie Long's recent proposal to create an independent citizens redistricting commission in Minnesota. While in Congress, he did not co-sponsor any of Lofgren's redistricting bills.
Back to Nickel's bill. It has been endorsed by many advocacy groups, including the Campaign Legal Center, the Communications Workers of America Union, Common Cause, Democracy Green, Down Home North Carolina, End Citizens United, Equality North Carolina the League of Women Voters, the NAACP, North Carolina Asian Americans Together, the North Carolina Justice Center and North Carolina Counts.
Can you believe that the National Democratic Redistricting Committee had no comment about the bill?
On the Republican side, former President Donald Trump and his running mate, Sen. J.D. Vance (Ohio) have not commented on the idea of establishing independent redistricting commissions.
The voters seem tired of hearing both parties cry "Save democracy!" with little action. Since the 93rd Congress (1973-75), none of redistricting bills has seen any meaningful movement..
Several polls tell us that over 50 percent of Democratic and Republican voters support independent redistricting commissions — so it could be the purest way to "Save democracy!"
When will our federal legislators get serious about listening to long-time requests for nonpartisan gerrymandering reform?
Johnson is the executive director of the Election Reformers Network, a national nonpartisan organization advancing common-sense reforms to protect elections from polarization.
For a democracy to function, one simple, central fact must be clear to all: who won. There is no disagreement about the winner of the Super Bowl or the Olympic gold medal in the shot put, and the same should be true for election results. But in polarized America, we’ve lost that clarity and public consensus.
Different media environments present radically different pictures of the election landscape. Citizens increasingly trust only the information from their side of the political divide. Who won is starting to sound subjective — a very dangerous trend.
On Tuesday, the State Election Board in Georgia took a big step toward making it worse.
The board voted to grant the state’s county-level election boards new and unclear powers to conduct inquiries into elections before certifying the results. This decision gives a role in evaluating election results to boards composed mostly of political-party-affiliated members, whose work is not likely to be perceived as impartial. The decision also conflicts with longstanding case law that has interpreted county board certification as a ministerial, non-discretionary function. The new powers “would sow disorder in the state’s election administration process, which already has safeguards to ensure election results are accurate and reliable,” the Brennan Center for Justice and United to Protect warned in a letter to the board.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
Local certification of results, in Georgia and most other states, used to be a sleepy bit of bureaucracy. A county commission or election board would receive precinct-by-precinct results from the county’s lead election official and certify that the numbers added up correctly. Statutes and case law in many states make clear that this process is not a time for investigation of results or independent judgment.
These county bodies in Georgia and other states do not need discretion at this phase because other election elements amply protect fair results. State laws provide for multiple verification checks of preliminary results, including recounts and audits. Party poll watchers are allowed to observe election processes to check for any irregularities. Parties and candidates can challenge election results in court.
Since 2020, certification has become a battleground in the polarization wars. In six states, board members have sowed doubt and disrupted elections by refusing to certify results, often based on clearly arbitrary and subjective reasoning. “I do not trust these [Dominion voting] machines and I want Otero County to have a fair election for everybody," said one New Mexico county commissioner who initially voted against certifying 2022 primary elections.
In New Mexico and other states, courts stepped in to ensure county boards or commissions complied with the law and certified the results. Those judicial actions kept certification problems from seriously disrupting election timeframes, but, because of the press attention, the standoffs contributed to distrust and uncertainty about results.
Some media coverage of the Georgia decision has mentioned a worst-case scenario of intentional certification delays designed to prevent Georgia’s electoral votes from reaching Washington in time to be counted, but there are strong arguments against the likelihood of this scenario. The county certification deadline in state law — one week after Election day — is quite early in the process, so any delay long enough to put electoral votes in jeopardy would clearly exceed the “reasonable” standard provided in the ruling, giving courts a clear path to intervene and force certification.
The principal argument in favor of Georgia’s new rule is that under the current “ministerial” approach, county board members must attest to results they haven’t personally confirmed. This concern can be addressed by clarifying a set of documents the boards should receive, a suggestion proposed by SEB Chair John Fervier.
It’s helpful to step back and take a comparative perspective on this debate. A recent study of 12 major democracies found that none has a separate certification step in their election process. In fact, none has the word “certification” (or its equivalent) in their election laws at all. What happens instead in those countries is straightforward: The people who run elections announce the results, courts hear any challenges and their decisions are final.
The best way for America to rebuild consensus about who won is not splintering decision-making among hundreds of ill-equipped partisan boards, but instead to follow the model described above: Prioritize the role of courts. As imperfect as they may be, no institution is better suited than courts to consider evidence, render judgment and anchor the rule of law in elections.
In 2020, dozens of courts across six battleground states decided 64 legal actions filed by the Trump campaign. All but one was dismissed, withdrawn or decided against the campaign. (See this report for an excellent summary of all cases.) Collectively, these decisions are the definitive verdict on who won the 2020 election, but they weren’t given the prominence they deserved. Too often commentary in mainstream media cited the opinions of experts on the trustworthiness of the elections, rather than decisions of judges whose rulings were, from the perspective of the rule of law, the last word on the matter.
The Electoral Count Reform Act, critically important legislation passed by a bipartisan majority in Congress, is based on the same core principle that courts have the key role in election disputes, and partisans — such as the vice president and members of Congress – –have minimal discretion. This is the direction we should be taking. Recent legislation passed in Michigan and Minnesota also reflects this approach, clarifying that the certification process is “purely ministerial.”
When the Georgia Legislature reconvenes, it should join this trend and override the SEB ruling.
President Biden's late exit from the election demonstrates why ranked-choice voting is needed.
Ernst is a volunteer and state leader at Veterans for All Voters.
By dropping out of the 2024 election, President Joe Biden accidentally made a whole new case for ranked-choice voting, an election reform generally opposed by the Democratic Party. Oops.
If Biden had chosen to not seek reelection a year ago, Vice President Kamala Harris would've had to compete against a half-dozen or so other contenders. It would have been a tough fight, much like her first attempt four years ago (when she was quickly eliminated). Who knows how she would have fared in a 2024 primary, but whoever became the eventual nominee would’ve been better postured going into the general election because the process of becoming nominee is helpful to generating authentic momentum.
Despite all the new energy, polling shows Harris actually isn't all that popular, and only marginally improves the Democrats' outlook for November. She fares better than Biden, sure, but she’s still neck-and-neck with Donald Trump in swing states, so no one should pop the champagne just yet. Regardless of how you feel about Harris and her ascent, we can only fault Biden so much. Instead, let's look at the process that got us here.
We could play "coulda, woulda, shoulda" all day long and think through the alternatives. But it doesn't have to be that way. If the Democratic Party, or both major parties, utilized ranked-choice voting, a clear process would show which candidate would be Plan B (or Plan C). This is helpful in a whole host of circumstances. What if the nominee has a heart attack? What if they are mired in a corruption scandal after primaries? What if …whatever? In a ranked-choice voting system the second place winner would be known, having been determined by the peoples' voices — unlike today.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
Embracing this construct isn’t just good for the parties, but also good for the candidates, the platforms and ultimately the nation. Ranked-choice voting would also ensure there is always a competitive primary process, even when there is an incumbent (especially a questionable one).
Over the past six months, the Democratic primary was simply not competitive — it was all Biden, because the incumbent will always have an insurmountable advantage. Those who did choose to run against Biden weren't even on the ballot in several states, so there was never a question of who would win the nomination.
There were no debates, no discussion about platform and the thorny issues on Americans’ minds. There was nothing. That's a recipe for stasis at best, and for crisis at worst. After Biden’s terrible debate performance, the Democratic Party got a taste of crisis.
Regardless of how you may feel about Harris being the Democrats' nominee, it should sit oddly with everyone how easily she ascended to the top of the ticket. All that needed to happen was to be endorsed by Biden and the party establishment, which became a self-fulfilling prophecy. And here we are — she is the nominee because that's just how it is. Accept it.
Even esteemed pro-democracy publications like The Atlantic somewhat celebrate the return of party elites in smoke-filled rooms installing a nominee irrespective of, or even intentionally contrary to, the peoples’ intent. But can Harris’ ascendency translate into bonafide momentum that will carry her through November and into a successful term? Who knows, but the lack of process is now a massive liability for her and the party.
If she loses in November, or if she wins and becomes anything less than a stellar president, then the Democratic Party will have immense buyer's remorse and voters rightfully will demand serious reforms to ensure the party cannot repeat such an egregious series of mistakes, one after another.
With the electoral process mostly managed at the state level, it'll be up to states to pass laws to enable primaries via ranked-choice voting. Wherever you are reading this, know that you can help make change real. There are hundreds of reform organizations around the country, trying to bring about changes like ranked-choice voting in every state, and they are ready for new volunteers like you.
Also, consider writing to your state representatives to let them know the time for electoral reform has arrived. And most importantly, talk to your friends and relatives about these ideas.
Just about everyone agrees that this system is malfunctioning, so let’s do something about it, one conversation at a time.
Gerrymandering (Not as fun as it is to say) - Why and Why Not
