Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Federal racial gerrymandering cases heat up in three states

racial gerrymandering court cases
OsakaWayneStudios/Getty Images

Thanks to a 2019 Supreme Court ruling, the federal judiciary has no role in resolving disputes over partisan gerrymandering. But racial gerrymandering remains within the purview of the federal courts, and cases are heating up.

Every 10 years, following the Census Bureau’s counting of the U.S. population, states redraw their legislative and congressional district maps. This redistricting process is supposed to account for population shifts, but both the Democratic and Republican parties have used it to secure as many seats as possible for the following decade.

Legislatures control the redistricting process in more than 30 states, while some states use commissions to draw state lines and a handful have a hybrid system.

There has been legal maneuvering in three states — Alabama, Tennessee and Washington — over the past few days regarding the role race has played in the remapping process.


Alabama

On Monday, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama ordered the Republican-controlled Legislature to redraw the congressional map, ruling the new lines violate the Voting Rights Act. On Tuesday, the state attorney general appealed the ruling.

The court determined that the approved map, in which minorities would only be a majority in one out of the state's seven congressional districts, must be redrawn. Black people represent 27 percent of the state population.

“The appropriate remedy is a congressional redistricting plan that includes either an additional majority-Black congressional district, or an additional district in which Black voters otherwise have an opportunity to elect a representative of their choice,” the court wrote in its ruling.

Read more about the case.

Tennessee

The state Democratic Party has said it is preparing to file a lawsuit over Tennessee’s new congressional district maps after the GOP-run General Assembly moved forward with a plan that dilutes the minority voting power.

According to the Tennessean, the plan “ cracks ” Davidson County, which is centered on Nashville, spreading the city’s majority-Black population across three districts. Republicans currently hold seven of the state’s nine congressional districts, and this plan could cement their control over an eighth seat.

“We are extremely concerned that the maps that were drawn reflect not just partisan gerrymandering but racial gerrymandering, which is in direct violation of the [Voting Rights Act],” League of Women Voters of Tennessee President Debbie Gould told WPLN.

Read more about Tennessee redistricting and the pending lawsuit.

Washington

Last week, a collection of voting rights groups filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of eight Latino voters and the Southcentral Coalition of People of Color for Redistricting, arguing the state’s new legislative maps violate the Voting Rights Act by diluting the power of Latino voters.

“The Commission’s approved state legislative district map cracks Latino voters in the Yakima Valley region, diluting their voting strength by placing them in several legislative districts with white voting majorities,” the lawsuit states. “Under the Commission’s approved state legislative district map, Latino voters in the Yakima Valley region will not be able to elect candidates of their choice and the map does not create a district in the Yakima Valley area that complies with the Voting Rights Act.”

UCLA Voting Rights Project, Campaign Legal Center, and Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund filed the case in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington on behalf of the plaintiffs.

“Federal and state courts have twice invalidated election systems that discriminate against Yakima Valley’s Latino voters,” said Mark Gaber, senior director of redistricting for CLC. “The commission’s refusal to learn from these court decisions has necessitated this third lawsuit. The discriminatory voting practices against Latino voters in the Yakima Valley must end.”

Unlike Alabama and Tennessee, where the legislatures control the redistricting process, Washington uses an independent commission.

Read more about the lawsuit.

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