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

A person signing a piece of paper with other people around them.

Javon Jackson, center, was able to register to vote following passage of a 2019 Nevada law that restored voting rights to formerly incarcerated individuals.

The Nation Is Missing Millions of Voters Due to Lack of Rights for Former Felons

If you gathered every American with a prison record into one contiguous territory and admitted it to the union, you would create the 12th-largest state. It would be home to at least 7 million to 8 million people and hold a dozen votes in the Electoral College.

In a close presidential race, this hypothetical state of the formerly incarcerated could decide who wins the White House.

Keep ReadingShow less
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
Stickers with the words "I Voted Today."

Virginia is on its way to be the 19th jurisdiction to adopt the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, bringing the U.S. closer to electing presidents by the national popular vote.

Getty Images, EyeWolf

Virginia On The Path to Join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact

NPVIC is an agreement among U.S. states and the District of Columbia to award all their electoral votes to the presidential ticket that wins the overall popular vote in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. It is considered a pragmatic, voluntary state-based initiative because it aims to ensure the winner of the national popular vote wins the presidency without requiring a constitutional amendment, operating instead within the existing Electoral College framework by utilizing states' constitutional authority to appoint electors. If enough states join the NPVIC to reach a total of 270 electoral votes, the United States will effectively shift from a winner-take-all (WTA) regime to a national popular vote system for electing the President.

With Virginia's adoption, the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact will be adopted by eighteen states and the District of Columbia, collectively holding 222 electoral votes. The compact requires 270 electoral votes (a majority of the 538 total) to take effect. It currently needs forty-eight more electoral votes to become active.

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