Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Should Harris-Walz embrace gerrymandering reform?

Should Harris-Walz embrace gerrymandering reform?

Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris and her running mate, Tim Walz take the stage at a campaign rally in Philadelphia on Aug. 6.

Kyle Mazza/Anadolu via Getty Images

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.

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?


Read More

People standing at voting booths.

The proposed SAVE Act and MEGA Act would require proof of citizenship to register to vote, risking the disenfranchisement of millions of eligible Americans.

Getty Images, EvgeniyShkolenko

The SAVE Act is a Solution in Search of A Problem

The federal government seems to be barreling toward a federal election power grab. Trump's State of the Union address called for the Senate to push through the SAVE Act, which has already passed the House, in the name of so-called "election integrity." And the SAVE Act isn’t the only such bill. Like the SAVE Act, the Make Elections Great Again (MEGA) Act—introduced in the House—would require voters to provide a document outlined in the Act that allegedly proves their U.S. citizenship. We’ve been down this road before in Texas, and spoiler alert: it was unworkable.

Both the SAVE and MEGA Acts would disenfranchise millions of eligible U.S. citizens without making our federal elections more secure. They seek to roll out a faulty federal voter registration system, despite the existing separate registration and voting process for state and local elections. And these Acts target a minuscule “problem”—but would unleash mass voter purges and confusion.

Keep ReadingShow less
With the focus on the voting posters, the people in the background of the photo sign up to vote.

Should the U.S. nationalize elections? A constitutional analysis of federalism, the Elections Clause, and the risks of centralized control over voting systems.

Getty Images, SDI Productions

Why Nationalizing Elections Threatens America’s Federalist Design

The Federalism Question: Why Nationalizing Elections Deserves Skepticism

The renewed push to nationalize American elections, presented as a necessary reform to ensure uniformity and fairness, deserves the same skepticism our founders directed toward concentrated federal power. The proposal, though well-intentioned, misunderstands both the constitutional architecture of our republic and the practical wisdom in decentralized governance.

The Constitutional Framework Matters

The Constitution grants states explicit authority over the "Times, Places and Manner" of holding elections, with Congress retaining only the power to "make or alter such Regulations." This was not an oversight by the framers; it was intentional design. The Tenth Amendment reinforces this principle: powers not delegated to the federal government remain with the states and the people. Advocates for nationalization often cite the Elections Clause as justification, but constitutional permission is not constitutional wisdom.

Keep ReadingShow less
Postal Service Changes Mean Texas Voters Shouldn’t Wait To Mail Voter Registrations and Ballots

A voter registration drive in Corpus Christi, Texas, on Oct. 5, 2024. The deadline to register to vote for Texas' March 3 primary election is Feb. 2, 2026. Changes to USPS policies may affect whether a voter registration application is processed on time if it's not postmarked by the deadline.

Gabriel Cárdenas for Votebeat

Postal Service Changes Mean Texas Voters Shouldn’t Wait To Mail Voter Registrations and Ballots

Texans seeking to register to vote or cast a ballot by mail may not want to wait until the last minute, thanks to new guidance from the U.S. Postal Service.

The USPS last month advised that it may not postmark a piece of mail on the same day that it takes possession of it. Postmarks are applied once mail reaches a processing facility, it said, which may not be the same day it’s dropped in a mailbox, for example.

Keep ReadingShow less
Post office trucks parked in a lot.

Changes to USPS postmarking, ranked choice voting fights, costly runoffs, and gerrymandering reveal growing cracks in U.S. election systems.

Photo by Sam LaRussa on Unsplash.

2026 Will See an Increase in Rejected Mail-In Ballots - Here's Why

While the media has kept people’s focus on the Epstein files, Venezuela, or a potential invasion of Greenland, the United States Postal Service adopted a new rule that will have a broad impact on Americans – especially in an election year in which millions of people will vote by mail.

The rule went into effect on Christmas Eve and has largely flown under the radar, with the exception of some local coverage, a report from PBS News, and Independent Voter News. It states that items mailed through USPS will no longer be postmarked on the day it is received.

Keep ReadingShow less