Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
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."

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

California Voters Don’t Like Either Party. Good Thing the Primary Doesn’t Belong to The Parties.

California voters increasingly distrust both major parties. Here's why the state's Top Two primary gives independent voters more power to shape elections.

Image: Duncan Shelby on Alamy.

California Voters Don’t Like Either Party. Good Thing the Primary Doesn’t Belong to The Parties.

SAN DIEGO, Calif. - California voters have already received ballots for the June 2 primary, and the message they have going into these elections may not be what the political class wants to hear: They are not thrilled with either major party.

A recent analysis from the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) found that majorities of likely voters have unfavorable views of both parties—61% unfavorable toward the Democratic Party and 70% unfavorable toward the Republican Party.

Keep ReadingShow less
How the Voting Rights Act Reshaped Texas’ Electoral Maps

President Lyndon B. Johnson, Martin Luther King Jr., Clarence Mitchell Jr., Patricia Roberts Harris, and other guests at the signing of the Voting Rights Act on August 6, 1965.

Yoichi Okamoto - Lyndon Baines Johnson Library and Museum

How the Voting Rights Act Reshaped Texas’ Electoral Maps

In 2002, U.S. Rep. Henry Bonilla, a Republican, nearly lost his South Texas seat to Democrat Henry Cuellar. So when the GOP used its newfound majority in the state Legislature to redraw the voting maps the next year, they sawed through Cuellar’s hometown of Laredo and scattered Latino voters, who tended to vote Democratic, into other districts.

Latino advocacy groups sued under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, the cornerstone provision of the law that prevents government bodies from diluting the voting power of specific groups. The Supreme Court found Texas lawmakers had taken away Latino voting power “because they were about to exercise it.”

Keep ReadingShow less
A group of people wait in line to get their ballots to vote in the election.

The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact could reshape presidential elections as Midwest states debate Electoral College reform, political polarization, and the future of winner-take-all voting in America.

Getty Images, SDI Productions

700+ Proposed Amendments Failed, Midwest Voters Can Succeed

The Midwest served as the vanguard and ideological heartland of the Progressive Era, acting as a crucial laboratory for political, social, and economic reforms that later adopted national significance. Midwestern states (the cradle of the movement) pioneered anti-monopoly efforts, democratic, and social improvements.

After 770+ failed proposed U.S. Constitutional Amendments (the most on record for one issue) to remedy the factionalism (21st century polarization) feared by the Framers of the U.S. Constitution.

Keep ReadingShow less
“We Can’t Afford It” Is Never an Acceptable Excuse To Deny Independents a Vote

DC voting rights advocate Lisa D.T. Rice criticized the DC City Council for failing to fund Initiative 83’s semi-open primary system, leaving 85,000 independent voters unable to participate in taxpayer-funded primaries despite overwhelming voter approval in 2024.

Photo by Getty Images on Unsplash.

“We Can’t Afford It” Is Never an Acceptable Excuse To Deny Independents a Vote

WASHINGTON, D.C. - Lisa D.T. Rice spoke before the DC City Council during a Budget Oversight Hearing on May 1 to talk about Initiative 83, the semi-open primary and ranked choice voting measure she proposed that was approved by 73% of voters in 2024.

- YouTube youtu.be

Keep ReadingShow less