Skip to content

Latest Stories

Top Stories

The voting rights bill isn't the solution to gerrymandering

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.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

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

Trump and Biden at the debate

Our political dysfunction was on display during the debate in the simple fact of the binary choice on stage: Trump vs Biden.

Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post via Getty Images

The debate, the political duopoly and the future of American democracy

Johnson is the executive director of the Election Reformers Network, a national nonpartisan organization advancing common-sense reforms to protect elections from polarization.

The talk is all about President Joe Biden’s recent debate performance, whether he’ll be replaced at the top of the ticket and what it all means for the very concerning likelihood of another Trump presidency. These are critical questions.

But Donald Trump is also a symptom of broader dysfunction in our political system. That dysfunction has two key sources: a toxic polarization that elevates cultural warfare over policymaking, and a set of rules that protects the major parties from competition and allows them too much control over elections. These rules entrench the major-party duopoly and preclude the emergence of any alternative political leadership, giving polarization in this country its increasingly existential character.

Keep ReadingShow less
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

Voters should be able to take the measure of Robert F. Kennedy Jr., since he is poised to win millions of votes in November.

Andrew Lichtenstein/Getty Images

Kennedy should have been in the debate – and states need ranked voting

Richie is co-founder and senior advisor of FairVote.

CNN’s presidential debate coincided with a fresh batch of swing-state snapshots that make one thing perfectly clear: Robert F. Kennedy Jr. may be a longshot to be our 47th president and faces his own controversies, yet the 10 percent he’s often achieving in Arizona, Michigan, Nevada and other battlegrounds could easily tilt the presidency.

Why did CNN keep him out with impossible-to-meet requirements? The performances, mistruths and misstatements by Joe Biden and Donald Trump would have shocked Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas, who managed to debate seven times without any discussion of golf handicaps — a subject better fit for a “Grumpy Old Men” outtake than one of the year’s two scheduled debates.

Keep ReadingShow less
I Voted stickers

Veterans for All Voters advocates for election reforms that enable more people to participate in primaries.

BackyardProduction/Getty Images

Veterans are working to make democracy more representative

Proctor, a Navy veteran, is a volunteer with Veterans for All Voters.

Imagine this: A general election with no negative campaigning and four or five viable candidates (regardless of party affiliation) competing based on their own personal ideas and actions — not simply their level of obstruction or how well they demonize their opponents. In this reformed election process, the candidate with the best ideas and the broadest appeal will win. The result: The exhausted majority will finally be well-represented again.

Keep ReadingShow less
Person voting at a dropbox in Washington, D.C.

A bill moving through Congress would only allow U.S. citizens to vote in D.C. municipal eletions.

Chen Mengtong/China News Service via Getty Images

The battle over noncitizen voting in America's capital

Rogers is the “data wrangler” at BillTrack50. He previously worked on policy in several government departments.

Should you be allowed to vote if you aren’t an American citizen? Or according to the adage ‘No taxation without representation’, if you pay taxes should you get to choose the representatives who help spend those tax dollars? Those questions are at the heart of the debate over a bill to restrict voting to U.S. citizens.

Keep ReadingShow less
people walking through a polling place

Election workers monitor a little-used polling place in Sandy Springs, Ga., during the state's 2022 primary.

Nathan Posner/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images

What November election? Half of the U.S. House is already decided.

Troiano is the executive director ofUnite America, a philanthropic venture fund that invests in nonpartisan election reform to foster a more representative and functional government. He’s also the author of “The Primary Solution.”

Last month, Americans were treated to an embarrassing spectacle: Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) and Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas) tradingpersonal insults related to “fake eyelashes” and a “bleach blonde bad built butch body” during a late-night committee hearing. Some likened it to Bravo’s “Real Housewives” reality TV series, and wondered how it was possible that elected officials could act that way and still be elected to Congress by the voters.

The truth is, the vast majority of us don’t actually elect our House members — not even close. Less than 10 percent of voters in Crockett’s district participated in her 2024 Democratic primary, which all but guaranteed her re-election in the safe blue district. Greene ran unopposed in her GOP primary — meaning she was re-elected without needing to win a single vote. The nearly 600,000 voters in her overwhelmingly red district were denied any meaningful choice. Both contests were decided well before most voters participate in the general election.

Keep ReadingShow less