Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Gerrymandered Pennsylvanians seeking a redress of their grievances

Gerrymandered Pennsylvanians seeking a redress of their grievances
Gerrymandering in Pennsylvania
Kuniholm is chairwoman of Fair Districts PA, created four years ago by other good-government groups in Pennsylvania to end partisanship in drawing of the state's legislative and congressional maps.

The Fourth of July commemorates the abiding right of the governed to alter or abolish any form of government that ignores the people's voice. The Declaration of Independence, signed 244 years ago last week, lists repeated injuries and usurpations that deprived the colonists of a voice in the establishment of laws, concluding: "In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injuries."

Supporters of redistricting reform considered those words over the holiday weekend with sadness. Some of us have spent 30 years asking for redress of an unfair redistricting process and an increasingly intransigent legislature.

More recently, we have attempted every lawful avenue of request, petitioning our representatives in Harrisburg in every way we know — with meetings, calls, emails, letters, postcards, op-eds, billboards, radio ads, petitions and resolutions of support. All have been met with silence, or with empty statements of support by those who could schedule a vote or easily move this reform forward.

Many members of the General Assembly, from both sides of the aisle, applaud and affirm our efforts. They know that the current system puts far too much power in the hands of just a few leaders — allowing men (they are all men) elected by a tiny fraction of the state's voters to draw district lines, set the legislative agenda and lock out any voice of dissent.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Those who hold the levers of power have ignored or blocked our continued petitions.

I write this on behalf of 70 members of the Fair Districts PA team. In the past month we have sent letters signed by hundreds of constituents to the Republicans who run the Senate, Joe Scarnati and Jake Corman, and Chairman John DiSanto of the Senate's State Government Committee. No response.

We have asked the new speaker of the House, Republican Bryan Cutler, and Chairman Garth Everett of that chamber's State Government Committee for a vote on bills. But we have received no assistance and no acknowledgement of the pressing deadline, which has now passed, for enacting this reform.

Thousands of Fair Districts PA supporters have now seen how arbitrary and unresponsive our Legislature has become.

Dozens of us have asked legislators for meetings and had no acknowledgment of the request.

Dozens have contacted legislators only to be told: "I'll let you know if I have questions. I see no reason to meet."

Dozens have met with legislators who say "this is a Democrat bill" or "you're a Democrat group" — both statements are untrue — as if that negates the request or absolves them of the need to consider its merits.

And most of us have been told the following don't matter:

  • Our number of cosponsors, the most of any bills in this or the last session.
  • The local resolutions supporting us, representing more than 70 percent of the population.
  • Our more than 100,00 petition signers.
  • The polling consistently showing more than two-thirds of voters support a citizens commission to take the place of the Legislature in drawing election district boundaries.

We've watched with sadness as bills introduced with one or two sponsors speed through both chambers without public comment, expert testimony or any evidence of public support.

We've listened with sadness as friendly legislators explain that "The bills that move are the ones leaders choose. It has nothing to do with what voters want."

We grieve as fellow supporters turn away in disgust, with the sad refrain, "Why bother?"

Our government is in a dangerous place: unaccountable, unresponsive, deeply divided, less and less able to hear the voices of those it promises to serve.

Unless our legislators return this summer, it is now too late to amend the state Constitution and institute an independent commission for legislative redistricting in time for 2021. But there are other possible remedies: strong guardrails on the current redistricting processes, immediate attention to legislative rules that put far too much power in the hands of too few leaders.

But this is what we want most: A change of heart, a course correction in the halls of Harrisburg. The voices of all voters should matter to every legislator — not just the the party faithful in a handful of leaders' home districts.

Until this changes, nothing changes.

Read More

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
Supreme Court
Nicolas Economou/NurPhoto via Getty Images

Gerrymandering and voting rights under review by Supreme Court again

On Dec. 13, The Fulcrum identified the worst examples of congressional gerrymandering currently in use.

In that news report, David Meyers wrote:

Keep ReadingShow less
Rear view diverse voters waiting for polling place to open
SDI Productions/Getty Images

Open primary advocates must embrace the historic principles of change

This was a big year for the open primaries movement. Seven state-level campaigns and one municipal. Millions of voters declaring their support for open primaries. New leaders emerging across the country. Primary elections for the first time at the center of the national reform debate.

But with six out of eight campaigns failing at the ballot box, it’s also an important moment of reflection.

Keep ReadingShow less