Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Partisan gerrymander landmark: N.C. court says state districts violate state constitution

North Carolina legislative map

The current map of state House districts in North Carolina, won by 65 Republicans and 55 Democrats last fall.

North Carolina's state legislative district lines are so contorted to favor Republicans that they violate the state constitution, a panel of three state judges ruled unanimously on Tuesday.

The ruling is a breakthrough victory for crusaders against partisan gerrymandering. They chose North Carolina first this summer when they turned to the state courts for sympathy, after the U.S. Supreme Court declared that federal courts have no authority to referee the limits of partisan power grabs in the drawing of electoral boundaries.


But the Supreme Court decision was clear in saying state courts could consider such gerrymandering claims based on the constitutions of their own states, some of which have provisions that are more expansive than the federal document.

The North Carolina constitution, for example, has a "free elections" clause that the judges cited in their ruling, saying it was breeched (as were the document's protections for the free speech, equal protection and freedom of assembly for the state's Democratic voters) when the GOP-majority legislature drew maps to assure they'd dominate elections for the state House and state Senate at least through the end of the decade.

"Extreme partisan gerrymandering does not fairly and truthfully ascertain the will of the people," the judges wrote. "Voters are not freely choosing their representatives. Rather, representatives are choosing their voters. It is not the will of the people that is fairly ascertained through extreme partisan gerrymandering. Rather, it is the will of the map drawers that prevails."

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

The decision may well bring to an end one of the longest-running battles in the country over partisans excesses in electoral mapmaking. The majority leader of the state Senate, Republican Phil Berger, said he had no plans to lead an appeal. "We intend to respect the court's decision and finally put this divisive battle behind us," he said in a statement. "Nearly a decade of relentless litigation has strained the legitimacy of this state's institutions, and the relationship between its leaders, to the breaking point. It's time to move on."

The judges (two Democrats and one Republican) gave the legislators two weeks to come up with new maps to be used in the 2020 elections and said they could not take into account any data about election results. They also ordered that the maps be drawn entirely in public, with the computer displays visible to all.

The tight deadline is because candidates have already declared and the first round of primaries is supposed to be in February.

The ruling did not cover the congressional boundaries, which are also drawn to favor the GOP, and so next week's special election to fill one of the House seats will not be disrupted.

In a decision running 357 pages, after a two-week trial in July, the judges said Republican state legislators had employed "surgical precision" to dilute Democratic voters' strength.

All decade, Republicans were consistently able to win more than 60 percent of seats in both of the state's legislative chambers despite only winning about half of the total statewide vote. The GOP majorities were veto-proof until after last year's election.

Read More

MERGER: The Organization that Brought Ranked Choice Voting and Ended SuperPACs in Maine Joins California’s Nonpartisan Primary Pioneers

A check mark and hands.

Photo by Allison Saeng on Unsplash. Unsplash+ License obtained by the author.

MERGER: The Organization that Brought Ranked Choice Voting and Ended SuperPACs in Maine Joins California’s Nonpartisan Primary Pioneers

Originally published by Independent Voter News.

Today, I am proud to share an exciting milestone in my journey as an advocate for democracy and electoral reform.

Keep ReadingShow less
Half-Baked Alaska

A photo of multiple checked boxes.

Getty Images / Thanakorn Lappattaranan

Half-Baked Alaska

This past year’s elections saw a number of state ballot initiatives of great national interest, which proposed the adoption of two “unusual” election systems for state and federal offices. Pairing open nonpartisan primaries with a general election using ranked choice voting, these reforms were rejected by the citizens of Colorado, Idaho, and Nevada. The citizens of Alaska, however, who were the first to adopt this dual system in 2020, narrowly confirmed their choice after an attempt to repeal it in November.

Ranked choice voting, used in Alaska’s general elections, allows voters to rank their candidate choices on their ballot and then has multiple rounds of voting until one candidate emerges with a majority of the final vote and is declared the winner. This more representative result is guaranteed because in each round the weakest candidate is dropped, and the votes of that candidate’s supporters automatically transfer to their next highest choice. Alaska thereby became the second state after Maine to use ranked choice voting for its state and federal elections, and both have had great success in their use.

Keep ReadingShow less
Top-Two Primaries Under the Microscope

The United States Supreme Court.

Getty Images / Rudy Sulgan

Top-Two Primaries Under the Microscope

Fourteen years ago, after the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional the popular blanket primary system, Californians voted to replace the deeply unpopular closed primary that replaced it with a top-two system. Since then, Democratic Party insiders, Republican Party insiders, minor political parties, and many national reform and good government groups, have tried (and failed) to deep-six the system because the public overwhelmingly supports it (over 60% every year it’s polled).

Now, three minor political parties, who opposed the reform from the start and have unsuccessfully sued previously, are once again trying to overturn it. The Peace and Freedom Party, the Green Party, and the Libertarian Party have teamed up to file a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Their brief repeats the same argument that the courts have previously rejected—that the top-two system discriminates against parties and deprives voters of choice by not guaranteeing every party a place on the November ballot.

Keep ReadingShow less
Ranked Choice Voting May Be a Stepping Stone to Proportional Representation

Someone filling out a ballot.

Getty Images / Hill Street Studios

Ranked Choice Voting May Be a Stepping Stone to Proportional Representation

In the 2024 U.S. election, several states did not pass ballot initiatives to implement Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) despite strong majority support from voters under 65. Still, RCV was defended in Alaska, passed by a landslide in Washington, D.C., and has earned majority support in 31 straight pro-RCV city ballot measures. Still, some critics of RCV argue that it does not enhance and promote democratic principles as much as forms of proportional representation (PR), as commonly used throughout Europe and Latin America.

However, in the U.S. many people have not heard of PR. The question under consideration is whether implementing RCV serves as a stepping stone to PR by building public understanding and support for reforms that move away from winner-take-all systems. Utilizing a nationally representative sample of respondents (N=1000) on the 2022 Cooperative Election Survey (CES), results show that individuals who favor RCV often also know about and back PR. When comparing other types of electoral reforms, RCV uniquely transfers into support for PR, in ways that support for nonpartisan redistricting and the national popular vote do not. These findings can inspire efforts that demonstrate how RCV may facilitate the adoption of PR in the U.S.

Keep ReadingShow less