Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

The voting rights bill isn't the solution to gerrymandering

Opinion

Gov. Larry Hogan speaks out against gerrymandering

Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan speaks at an anti-gerrymandering rally in 2019.

Howard Gorrell

Gorrell is an advocate for the deaf, a former Republican Party election statistician, and a longtime congressional aide. He has been advocating against partisan gerrymandering for four decades.

The For the People Act “would help end voter suppression in states, get dark money out of politics, give voice to people, create fair district maps and end partisan political gerrymandering,” President Biden said at the historic National Constitution Center in Philadelphia, the birthplace of American democracy, in July 2021.

Six months later, Biden spoke about that bill’s successor, the Freedom to Vote Act, on the grounds at Morehouse College and Clark Atlanta University: “It would get dark money out of politics, create fairer district maps, and ending partisan gerrymandering.”

Last Thursday, the House combined the Freedom to Vote Act and the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act into a 735-page megabill. The Senate is beginning debate on the Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act this week.

If this bill passes, its supporters claim, it will end partisan gerrymandering for congressional districts by setting a national standard for determining if a map is gerrymandered to favor one party.

Nevertheless, that's just not true.


While the bill would give the Justice Department, private citizens and political parties, among others, the ability to bring lawsuits challenging congressional maps, they would only be able to do so in one court, which is located in heavily Democratic Washington, D.C.

Currently, the venue for partisan redistricting cases is not addressed explicitly in federal law. A three-judge panel hears cases, and appeals bypass circuit courts and go directly to the Supreme Court.

However, in a 2019 decision on the North Carolina redistricting case, Rucho v. Common Cause, the Supreme Court decided that partisan gerrymandering was not an issue for federal courts. Chief Justice John Roberts laid the responsibility for judging a gerrymandered map at the feet of state courts. Since then, Democrats and Republicans have filed lawsuits in at least nine state courts in the last several months, challenging congressional or legislative district lines.

Language in the Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act states that all partisan gerrymandering claims would have to be brought in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (not your local federal district court) — creating a sort of specialty court that can serve as a rapid-response traffic cop on congressional maps. A decision would be reviewable on appeal, but only by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (the most liberal circuit in the country). Then a decision by the Court of Appeals could be reviewed by the Supreme Court.

The D.C. Circuit judges have swayed over time between a Republican- and Democratic-appointed majority. The court currently consists of a chief judge and three others appointed by former Barack Obama, one George H. W. Bush, two by Bill Clinton, three by Donald Trump and two appointed by Biden. As of now, the final count is eight Democratic-appointed judges and four Republican-appointed judges.

A three-judge panel would hear partisan gerrymandering cases. It could be “Democratic partisan gerrymandering” only when two or three Democratic-appointed judges sit. However, it could be “Republican partisan gerrymandering” when Republicans secure a hypothetical GOP trifecta in 2024.

Wait! What about the creation of an independent redistricting commission? The For the People Act would have required states to establish a bipartisan independent commission to redraw their congressional districts every 10 years. However, the Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act would not require nonpartisan redistricting commissions (just that states adhere to nonpartisan mapping criteria).

The solution? If the bill fails, as expected, the best alternative to end the 210-year-long partisan gerrymandering problem could be a bill previously offered by California Democratic Rep. Zoe Lofgren. She should reintroduce her redistricting reform bill, for a ninth time, as a stand-alone measure. In 2021, Lofgren essentially folded her bill into the doomed For The People Act. During the eight previous Congresses, it died in committee and gained relatively few cosponsors until after Trump’s election in 2016.

It is time for Rep. Lofgren to release her unorthodox weapon, one we need to defend democracy.

======

Writer: Gorrell is an advocate for the Deaf, a former Republican Party election statistician, and a longtime congressional aide. He has been advocating against partisan gerrymandering for four decades.

Maryland Governor Larry Hogan at a rally for Fair Maps in front of the U.S. Supreme Court in 2019. Photo by Howard Gorrell.

Former California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger at a rally for Fair Maps in front of the U.S. Supreme Court in 2019. Photo by Howard Gorrell.


Read More

Republican, Democratic and independent checkboxes, with the third one checked

Analysis of California’s open primary system, political reform, and voter empowerment amid gubernatorial tensions and calls to restore party control.

zimmytws/Getty Images

California Schemin’

Both before and after Eric Swalwell’s resignation, the California Gubernatorial race has partisan insiders screaming that California’s innovative, voter-friendly, open primary system should be scrapped. Why? Seven Democrats and two Republicans are running. If all the Democrats stay in the race, and none surges, there is a statistical possibility that the two Republicans advance to the general election.

The attacks are pure opportunism, from people who oppose open primaries, period. Never mind that seven million independent voters have been enfranchised and elections are much more competitive, according to these critics, the fact that the Gubernatorial race might feature two Republicans is absolute proof that the old system needs to be restored.

Keep ReadingShow less
Official ballots with a chain and lock over them, and the USA flag behind them.

The impact of election fraud claims and voting laws on democracy in the United States. Daniel O. Jamison examines voter suppression concerns, mail-in ballot policies, and the broader political struggle over election integrity.

Getty Images, JJ Gouin

If It Ain’t Broke, Don’t Fix It

For nearly ten years, claims that our elections are riddled with fraud have threatened the foundation of our democratic republic.

It is alleged that Democrats have flooded the country with illegal immigrants who then illegally vote for Democrats. Purportedly to protect the country from this, Republicans seek legislation that would, among other provisions, restrict vote-by-mail, require potentially expensive and onerous proof of citizenship to register to vote, and require potentially expensive photo identification to vote.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Fahey Q&A with Elizabeth Rasmussen

An in-depth interview with Elizabeth Rasmussen of Better Boundaries on Utah’s redistricting battle, Proposition 4, and the fight to protect ballot initiatives, fair maps, and democratic accountability.

The Fahey Q&A with Elizabeth Rasmussen

Since organizing the Voters Not Politicians 2018 ballot initiative that put citizens in charge of drawing Michigan's legislative maps, Fahey has been the founding executive director of The People, which is forming statewide networks to promote government accountability. She regularly interviews colleagues in the world of democracy reform for The Fulcrum.

Elizabeth Rasmussen is the Executive Director for Better Boundaries, a Utah-based organization fighting for fair maps, defending the citizen initiative process, preserving checks and balances, and building a better future. Currently making headlines in the state, Better Boundaries is working to protect Proposition 4, and with it, the rights of Utah voters.

Keep ReadingShow less
A sign that reads, "Voter Registration," hanging from the cieling, pointing to an office with the words, "Voter registration," above its doorway.

The voter registration office at the Nueces County Courthouse in Corpus Christi, Texas on Sept. 11, 2024. Voting rights groups are challenging the state's use of a federal database to check the citizenship status of people on the state's voter roll.

Gabriel Cárdenas for Votebeat

Voting Rights Groups Challenge Texas’ Removal of Potential Noncitizens From the Voter Roll

What happened?

Voting rights groups are suing the Texas Secretary of State’s Office and some county election officials to prevent the removal of voters from the state’s voter roll based on use of a federal database to verify citizenship. They also claim the state failed to crosscheck its own records for proof of citizenship it already possessed before seeking to remove voters.

Keep ReadingShow less