Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Deeds, not words, show Obama is not the reformer he's sounding like

Exclusive: Obama on the Urgency of 2020's Senate & Down Ballot Races | NowThis
Gorrell is an advocate for the deaf, a former Republican Party election statistician, and a longtime congressional aide. He has been advocating against partisan gerrymandering for four decades.

I got a jolt of optimism in late September when someone alerted me to a four-minute video posted by the progressive news organization NowThis News.

There was former President Barack Obama, urging his fans to vote for state legislative candidates committed to doing the right thing when redrawing the nation's congressional and legislative lines next year. "Those maps will stand for 10 years," he reminded viewers. "That could mean a decade of fairly drawn districts where folks have an equal voice in their government, or it could mean a decade of unfair partisan gerrymandering."

Could this mean that, after all these years, that Obama had become a genuine anti-gerrymanderer? It was thrilling to think about, but soon enough I was reminded of all the other ways he's been more of an invisible gerrymanderer.

His personal relationship to the practice dates back two decades, to his days as an ambitious young Illinois legislator.

Having recently won his first re-election to the state Senate, Obama was in position to get what he wanted when the General Assembly redrew its own districts in 2001. And so he did. With the assistance of Democratic consultant John Corrigan, the contours of Obama's 13th District were shifted northward to assure that some of Chicago's wealthiest citizens would become part of his financial and political base.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

The Democratic coalition Obama wanted to build — wealthier, whiter, less blue-collar and better-educated — allowed him to sharpen the campaign message that helped him move from the Senate in Springfield to the Senate in Washington, and then onto the presidency.

At the same time, however, the forces of partisan gerrymandering were being used against him. Obama had been trounced in 2000 when he challenged Rep. Bobby Rush in the Democratic primary, but the congressman wanted to make sure his young rival did not set his eyes on a rematch. And so, with the help of venerable political mapmaker Kimball Brace, Rush persuaded his friends in Springfield to tinker ever so slightly with the boundaries of the 1st Congressional District — so the lines ran one block to the north, two blocks to the west and one block to the south of Obama's residence.

"There is a conflict of interest built into the process," he told the weekly newspaper in his Hyde Park neighborhood that summer. "Incumbents drawing their own maps will inevitably try to advantage themselves."

It was a message he resurrected 15 years later, in his final State of the Union address. "We have to end the practice of drawing our congressional districts so that politicians can pick their voters, and not the other way around," Obama told Congress in January 2016. "Let a bipartisan group do it."

And yet, he spent none of his presidential political capital trying to advance the cause of bipartisan, let alone nonpartisan, mapmaking. He did not act when it mattered most — in his first two years, when fellow Democrats controlled the House and Senate. At the time, it seemed their party would do well enough in the 2010 midterms to dominate redistricting for the decade now coming to an end.

It turned out the opposite way. A Republican wave that year (fueled in part by fundraising for something called the Redistricting Majority Project) resulted in all-GOP state governments getting to draw almost half the 435 congressional districts the next year — while all-Democratic governments drew about 50.

Freed from his presidential duties, and the NowThis video notwithstanding, Obama has returned to his gerrymandering ways. With his former attorney general, Eric Holder, he's captaining the National Democratic Redistricting Committee.

While working to portray itself as out to combat partisan gerrymandering, the opposite is plainly true. Its website describes the NDRC as "the centralized hub for executing a comprehensive redistricting strategy that shifts the redistricting power, creating fair districts where Democrats can compete." Its IRS filings say the organization's purpose is to "build a comprehensive plan to favorably position Democrats for the redistricting process through 2022."

Obama's video does not mention his past support for redistricting commissions. He has not spoken out in favor of the one measure on the ballot next month, in Virginia, that would make nonpartisan citizens central players in the remapping for the next decade. He has not offered a kind word about the ad hoc citizen panel convened by Gov. Tony Evers, a fellow Democrat, to pressure the GOP majority in the Wisconsin Legislature.

Most recently notable, he did not mention redistricting reform as one of the cures for democracy's problems he rattled off Wednesday during a stemwinder at a drive-in pep rally Philadelphia, his debut as a Joe Biden campaign surrogate.

So don't be fooled by the video. Obama has evolved in the past 20 years, from the target of a partisan gerrymander into the invisible gerrymanderer.

Read More

One Lesson from the Elections: Looking At Universal Voting

A roll of "voted" stickers.

Pexels, Element5 Digital

One Lesson from the Elections: Looking At Universal Voting

The analysis and parsing of learned lessons from the 2024 elections will continue for a long time. What did the campaigns do right and wrong? What policies will emerge from the new arrangements of power? What do the parties need to do for the future?

An equally important question is what lessons are there for our democratic structures and processes. One positive lesson is that voting itself was almost universally smooth and effective; we should applaud the election officials who made that happen. But, many elements of the 2024 elections are deeply challenging, from the increasingly outsized role of billionaires in the process to the onslaught of misinformation and disinformation.

Keep ReadingShow less
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