Skip to content
Project 2025
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories
The Panama Canal has value to American business—but it has more value to China

The Panama Canal has value to American business—but it has more value to China

Congress Bill Spotlight: renaming Gulf of Mexico as “Gulf of America”

Congress Bill Spotlight: renaming Gulf of Mexico as “Gulf of America”

Project 2025: Part II

Project 2025: Part II

The False Promise of Dismantling DEI

The False Promise of Dismantling DEI

Redistricting

Redistricting

Ohio's congressional map is impermissibly partisan, federal judges rule

The Fulcrum
By The FulcrumMay 03, 2019
The Fulcrum
The Fulcrum staff.
See More Writings by author

Ohio's congressional map is an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander, a panel of three federal judges ruled unanimously on Friday.

The decision only heightens the landmark nature of the decision due next month from the Supreme Court. It is poised to either conclude that drawing electoral districts for partisan gain is not something the courts should interfere with, or else set a nationwide standard for when redistricting becomes so poisoned by political power plays that the voters' free speech or free association rights are violated.

Ohio becomes the fourth state where House district maps have been struck down by a court as impermissibly punishing one party's voters to benefit the other side. The maps in North Carolina, drawn to favor the Republicans, and in Maryland, drawn to benefit the Democrats, are before the Supreme Court. A panel of federal judges in Michigan this month struck down that state's map, at least until the high court ruling. Two years ago, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court said that state's map was unconstitutionally politicized by the GOP and compelled that it get remade so Democrats could contest more seats in the 2018 midterm.

Ohio, Pennsylvania and Michigan are all politically purple and the overall votes for Congress have been split almost evenly in this decade. But Ohio's map has consistently produced a delegation of 12 Republicans and just four Democrats.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Attorneys for the Republicans who ran the mapmaking process at the start of the decade said they collaborated with the Democrats with the main objectives of protecting incumbents at a time the state lost two House seats. But the judges – one named by Bill Clinton, one by Barack Obama and one by George W. Bush – rejected that argument and ordered the state to come up with a more politically balanced map by June 20, likely before the Supreme Court ruling.

Latest news

If we can come together on family policy, so should Congress
Governance & Legislation

If we can come together on family policy, so should Congress

Senate confirms RFK. Jr as the nation's health secretary
Governance & Legislation

Senate confirms RFK. Jr as the nation's health secretary

One Lesson from the Elections: Looking At Universal Voting
Electoral Reforms

One Lesson from the Elections: Looking At Universal Voting

The Burden of Survival and Pursuing Justice
Rule of Law

The Burden of Survival and Pursuing Justice

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
© Copyright 2025