Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Partisan maps hurt children, liberal group says in pushing for a campaign issue

Education images
Mukhina1/Getty Images

Legislative lines drawn by politicians focused on preserving their power get criticized mainly for skewing election outcomes and disenfranchising voters. But they are also having a lasting impact on the education and health care of the next generation.

That's the conclusion of a report released Thursday by a prominent progressive think tank, the Center for American Progress, which maintains that partisan gerrymandering a decade ago by Republicans in four battleground states has limited the availability of child care, education and other family support programs.

The study — which echoes similar CAP reports in recent months arguing that more gun control measures and Medicaid expansions would have been enacted in recent years but for aggressive GOP mapmaking — is part of the wave of efforts to make partisan gerrymandering an election issue this year.


Liberal advocacy groups are pushing hard, and spending generously, to elect enough Democrats to legislatures in purple states that they control more of the next nationwide redistricting, which starts next year after census results are finalized. The GOP dominated the process a decade ago. Good-government groups, meanwhile, are pressing ballot measures to make more states assign the job to independent commissions that would put a premium on compact districts and electoral competition.

Putting an end to partisan gerrymandering would provide "a better, more secure future for America's children and their families," CAP says.

The report maintains that, in the past two years, the North Carolina, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin legislatures shortchanged health care, education, day care and other social safety net programs for the young even though they enjoyed solid public support — concluding this could not have happened without maps that over-inflated the sizes of GOP majorities in each state capital.

In three of the states (not Wisconsin) the GOP has secured state House and Senate majorities in several recent elections where Democratic legislative candidates won the cumulative statewide vote.

All four have Democratic governors who were unable in 2018 and 2019 to win approval for budgets expanding early childhood education and child care services. Last year, for example, Gov. Gretchen Whitmer proposed a Michigan budget with an additional $84 million to cover preschool education for poor and middle-income families — but the GOP legislature pared the increase to just $5 million.

The coronavirus pandemic has also put "an incredible strain on state budgets," the report says, which could further scale back the funding available for these programs.

"Fixing gerrymandering is not a cure-all for the struggles of children and families, but it would help to ensure that legislators reflect the wider public when they discuss these issues and craft policy solutions," the report says.

The most popular method for combating gerrymandering has been through independent redistricting commissions. Fourteen states will use such a system to redraw their legislative maps in 2021, and eight will do so for their congressional maps. Virginia voters will decide in November whether their state will join that roster next year, and a longshot bid for a similar vote in Arkansas remains alive.

Conversely, Missourians will vote on whether to undo a redistricting reform initiative they approved just two years ago.

At the same time, the more partisan push on redistricting intensified on Thursday when the National Democratic Redistricting Committee, the political action operation run by Obama administration Attorney General Eric Holder, announced it would invest another $300,000 in the campaigns of 67 legislative candidates in North Carolina and Texas — on top of $150,000 spent this winter.

Turning the state capitals blue in Austin and Raleigh is within a long reach for the party, and that alone would allow the Democrats to draw 51 more congressional districts in 2021 than they did in 2011.

Read More

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
Hand of a person casting a ballot at a polling station during voting.

Gerrymandering silences communities and distorts elections. Proportional representation offers a proven path to fairer maps and real democracy.

Getty Images, bizoo_n

Gerrymandering Today, Gerrymandering Tomorrow, Gerrymandering Forever

In 1963, Alabama Governor George Wallace declared, "Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever." (Watch the video of his speech.) As a politically aware high school senior, I was shocked by the venom and anger in his voice—the open, defiant embrace of systematic disenfranchisement, so different from the quieter racism I knew growing up outside Boston.

Today, watching politicians openly rig elections, I feel that same disbelief—especially seeing Republican leaders embrace that same systematic approach: gerrymandering now, gerrymandering tomorrow, gerrymandering forever.

Keep ReadingShow less
An oversized ballot box surrounded by people.

Young people worldwide form new parties to reshape politics—yet America’s two-party system blocks them.

Getty Images, J Studios

No Country for Young Politicians—and How To Fix That

In democracies around the world, young people have started new political parties whenever the establishment has sidelined their views or excluded them from policymaking. These parties have sometimes reinvigorated political competition, compelled established parties to take previously neglected issues seriously, or encouraged incumbent leaders to find better ways to include and reach out to young voters.

In Europe, a trio in their twenties started Volt in 2017 as a pan-European response to Brexit, and the party has managed to win seats in the European Parliament and in some national legislatures. In Germany, young people concerned about climate change created Klimaliste, a party committed to limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, as per the Paris Agreement. Although the party hasn’t won seats at the federal level, they have managed to win some municipal elections. In Chile, leaders of the 2011 student protests, who then won seats as independent candidates, created political parties like Revolución Democrática and Convergencia Social to institutionalize their movements. In 2022, one of these former student leaders, Gabriel Boric, became the president of Chile at 36 years old.

Keep ReadingShow less
How To Fix Gerrymandering: A Fair-Share Rule for Congressional Redistricting

Demonstrators gather outside of The United States Supreme Court during an oral arguments in Gill v. Whitford to call for an end to partisan gerrymandering on October 3, 2017 in Washington, DC

Getty Images, Olivier Douliery

How To Fix Gerrymandering: A Fair-Share Rule for Congressional Redistricting

The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield, and government to gain ground. ~ Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Col. Edward Carrington, Paris, 27 May 1788

The Problem We Face

The U.S. House of Representatives was designed as the chamber of Congress most directly tethered to the people. Article I of the Constitution mandates that seats be apportioned among the states according to population and that members face election every two years—design features meant to keep representatives responsive to shifting public sentiment. Unlike the Senate, which prioritizes state sovereignty and representation, the House translates raw population counts into political voice: each House district is to contain roughly the same number of residents, ensuring that every citizen’s vote carries comparable weight. In principle, then, the House serves as the nation’s demographic mirror, channeling the diverse preferences of the electorate into lawmaking and acting as a safeguard against unresponsive or oligarchic governance.

Nationally, the mismatch between the overall popular vote and the partisan split in House seats is small, with less than a 1% tilt. But state-level results tell a different story. Take Connecticut: Democrats hold all five seats despite Republicans winning over 40% of the statewide vote. In Oklahoma, the inverse occurs—Republicans control every seat even though Democrats consistently earn around 40% of the vote.

Keep ReadingShow less