Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

A father-daughter film underscores states' rights to bar partisan maps

A father-daughter film underscores states' rights to bar partisan maps

Rachel and Bob Millman in Lock Haven, Penn., with a copy of a teaser trailer for their documentary "Line in the Street."

Rachel Millman

When judges in North Carolina last week struck down the state's legislative maps, a potential watershed in the fight against partisan gerrymandering, the moment felt particularly familiar to moviemaker Bob Millman.

That's because he and his daughter Rachel Millman spent two years documenting a similar and also successful fight against the overtly political contours of a congressional map for Pennsylvania.

Their resulting film, "Line in the Street," debuted last year and is getting additional attention now the North Carolina map has joined the Pennsylvania map in the trash — and both for the same reasons.


Both were drawn by the Republicans in power to maximize their chances for continued electoral dominance. And both were thrown out as violations of the free association and equal protection rights of Democratic and non-affiliated voters under their states' constitutions, a fundamentally important distinction now that the Supreme Court has ruled that the United States Constitution provides no such protections for voters victimized by partisan gerrymandering.

The movie, recently re-edited to run a punchy 40 minutes (a dozen fewer than the first release) is now streaming on Vimeo on Demand and being shown at frequent screenings. On Friday, for example, it will be screened at the University of Southern California's Schwarzenegger Institute for State and Global Policy — named for the former GOP governor who led something of an anti-gerrymandering crusade in California.

"What I'm hoping is that people will start to really understand that a state's constitution means something. It's really the only guiding document for partisan redistricting reform," Bob Millman said.

It was a realization he said came to him after first hearing about the litigation that ended up bringing down the map for Pennsylvania. Regardless of the outcome, he wanted to tell this story. And, spoiler alert, he got the ending he hoped for.

The state Supreme Court ruled in January 2018 that the right to vote enshrined in the state's charter document had been violated when GOP lawmakers drew 13 House districts designed to elect Republicans and only five to benefit Democrats throughout this decade — even though the state's electorate is close to evenly split in the total congressional vote election after election.

When the GOP legislature and the Democratic governor deadlocked on what to do next, the court came up with the map used in last year's midterm — which yielded nine House members from each party.

The documentary begins with Bob explaining what gerrymandering is and how it works, using dimes and pennies to represent two hypothetical political parties. The film then dives into the Pennsylvania case, following anti-gerrymandering advocates as they lobbied against the Republican state lawmakers who controlled the mapmaking.

Trailer - Line in the Street from Robert Millman on Vimeo.

The Millmans, who describe themselves as politically progressive activists, are both lifelong New Yorkers. He's a 68-year-old self-employed home remodeler living near Albany who has worked in audio-visual production for the state bar. She is a 31-year-old Brooklynite who's social media manager for a culture and technology news website.

But they say they got to know Pennsylvania almost better than their own home state during the making of the movie. As they made the documentary, Bob and Rachel made countless filial bonding trips across the Keystone State to film demonstrations and interview subjects.

"I feel really lucky that I got to go on this incredibly unique journey with my dad," she said.

The Millmans don't bill themselves as professional documentarians, although Bob did make another film a dozen years ago — a 22-minute piece, "Bought and Sold," about how the voting rights of New Yorkers were being infringed by the state's reliance on decades-old mechanical voting booths. (A year after the film came out, the state switched to optically scanned paper ballots, still viewed as the most reliable and tamper-proof way to conduct elections.)

Rachel used her social media savvy and sizable Twitter following to boost fundraising efforts for the film. In two months, the pair raised $28,500 on Indiegogo — a shoestring budget for a documentary, but they made it work.

"If you can get people to come together in a room and watch this film, they feel not only motivated to do something, but they have someone in the room to do it with," Bob said. "If representative democracy is going to survive, we can't be isolated."

The Millmans hope their film mobilizes more people from different states to fight back against politicized mapmaking.

"Whatever your cause is, whether it's climate change or gun control, if you want that change to happen, then you have to fix gerrymandering first," Rachel said.

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