Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Republicans sue to stop Michigan voters' gerrymander reform

Republicans have gone to federal court in a bid to prevent creation of an independent commission to draw Michigan's electoral maps, which voters ordered up last year in order to thwart partisan gerrymandering.

The plaintiffs in a lawsuit filed Tuesday are challenging eligibility guidelines that prohibit politicians and their families from sitting on the panel, saying those rules violate the free speech and equal protection rights of potential applicants to serve.

In a landmark referendum approved with 61 percent support last fall, Michiganders voted to turn congressional and state legislative redistricting for the next decade over to a new panel of four self-identified Democrats, four self-identified Republicans and five unaffiliated members.


The proposal was championed by people angry at how Republicans had drawn the state's maps to assure the dominant color would stay red even after elections with most ballots for blue. (For example, the same day the referendum was adopted, the GOP stayed in control of the state House even though Democratic candidates won more votes statewide, although Democrats did pick up two U.S. seats for a 7-7 split.)

Since the Supreme Court ruled in June that federal courts may not referee when partisanship in mapmaking goes too far, the role of such ballot initiatives has gained prominence for anti-gerrymandering activists.

People who have been on any ballot or held any partisan appointment in the last six years, their employees and lobbyists are barred from being commissioners – and so are their parents, children and spouses. Restricting family members from serving is one of the ways the new law is unconstitutional, say the 15 GOP plaintiffs.

Their litigation is being funded by Fair Lines America, a nonprofit with ties to the National Republican Redistricting Trust, where former GOP Gov. Scott Walker is treasurer

The Democratic secretary of state, Jocelyn Benson, who is in charge of choosing the commissioners by September 2020, said she would keep that process going while fighting the suit.

"Michigan is one of the most gerrymandered states in the nation, but voters pushed back by overwhelmingly supporting the new redistricting amendment so voters choose their politicians — not the other way around," a spokeswoman for Voters Not Politicians, the grassroots group formed to push the ballot measure, told the Associated Press. "We're confident that the proposal will survive any and all legal challenges, just as it did from many of these same politicians on the way to the ballot."

Read More

A person putting on an "I Voted" sticker.

Major redistricting cases in Louisiana and Texas threaten the Voting Rights Act and the representation of Black and Latino voters across the South.

Getty Images, kali9

The Voting Rights Act Is Under Attack in the South

Under court order, Louisiana redrew to create a second majority-Black district—one that finally gave true representation to the community where my family lives. But now, that district—and the entire Voting Rights Act (VRA)—are under attack. Meanwhile, here in Texas, Republican lawmakers rammed through a mid-decade redistricting plan that dramatically reduces Black and Latino voting power in Congress. As a Louisiana-born Texan, it’s disheartening to see that my rights to representation as a Black voter in Texas, and those of my family back home in Louisiana, are at serious risk.

Two major redistricting cases in these neighboring states—Louisiana v. Callais and Texas’s statewide redistricting challenge, LULAC v. Abbott—are testing the strength and future of the VRA. In Louisiana, the Supreme Court is being asked to decide not just whether Louisiana must draw a majority-Black district to comply with Section 2 of the VRA, but whether considering race as one factor to address proven racial discrimination in electoral maps can itself be treated as discriminatory. It’s an argument that contradicts the purpose of the VRA: to ensure all people, regardless of race, have an equal opportunity to elect candidates amid ongoing discrimination and suppression of Black and Latino voters—to protect Black and Brown voters from dilution.

Keep ReadingShow less
Princeton Gerrymandering Project Gives California Prop 50 an ‘F’
Independent Voter News

Princeton Gerrymandering Project Gives California Prop 50 an ‘F’

The special election for California Prop 50 wraps up November 4 and recent polling shows the odds strongly favor its passage. The measure suspends the state’s independent congressional map for a legislative gerrymander that Princeton grades as one of the worst in the nation.

The Princeton Gerrymandering Project developed a “Redistricting Report Card” that takes metrics of partisan and racial performance data in all 50 states and converts it into a grade for partisan fairness, competitiveness, and geographic features.

Keep ReadingShow less
"Vote Here" sign

America’s political system is broken — but ranked choice voting and proportional representation could fix it.

Stephen Maturen/Getty Images

Election Reform Turns Down the Temperature of Our Politics

Politics isn’t working for most Americans. Our government can’t keep the lights on. The cost of living continues to rise. Our nation is reeling from recent acts of political violence.

79% of voters say the U.S. is in a political crisis, and 64% say our political system is too divided to solve the nation’s problems.

Keep ReadingShow less
U.S. President Barack Obama speaking on the phone in the Oval Office.

U.S. President Barack Obama talks President Barack Obama talks with President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan during a phone call from the Oval Office on November 2, 2009 in Washington, DC.

Getty Images, The White House

‘Obama, You're 15 Years Too Late!’

The mid-decade redistricting fight continues, while the word “hypocrisy” has become increasingly common in the media.

The origin of mid-decade redistricting dates back to the early history of the United States. However, its resurgence and legal acceptance primarily stem from the Texas redistricting effort in 2003, a controversial move by the Republican Party to redraw the state's congressional districts, and the 2006 U.S. Supreme Court decision in League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry. This decision, which confirmed that mid-decade redistricting is not prohibited by federal law, was a significant turning point in the acceptance of this practice.

Keep ReadingShow less