Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
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

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