Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Redistricting commission plan vetoed by N.H. governor

Gov. Chris Sununu has vetoed legislation that would have created an independent commission to draw New Hampshire's electoral boundaries.

A first principle of the democracy reform movement is that the job of electoral mapmaking must be taken out of the hands of the politicians running each state, because whether they're Republicans or Democrats their top priority will be gerrymandering the districts to perpetuate their own partisan advantage.

But the Republican governor, in the veto message released Friday, said the state Constitution gives elected officials — state legislators and the governor — the authority to draw lines for congressional districts, state legislative districts and members of the governor's executive council.


"The members of the commission proposed in House Bill 706 would be unelected and unaccountable to the voters," Sununu wrote.

His veto message also cited the fact that gerrymandering issues are extremely rare in New Hampshire — which has just two U.S. House seats to fill but also a whopping 400 seats in the state House — and that an unnamed outside group pushing for the legislation had as its mission to "favorably position Democrats for the redistricting process."

That phrase is used by the National Democratic Redistricting Committee in one of its filings with the IRS. The advocacy group, formed by former Attorney General Eric Holder and supported by former President Barack Obama, believes the GOP has succeeded in recent years in skewing the map-drawing process to its favor and seeks reforms that give Democrats a fair chance.

Holder called Sununu's veto "completely unacceptable" and, in a statement, said he "has truly revealed himself to be a captive of the special interests who fear the will of the people."

The legislation passed the solidly Democratic state House with the support of 16 Republicans, about 10 percent of the GOP members, but in the narrowly Democratic Senate the vote followed party lines.

The bill called for creating a commission comprised of five Democrats, five Republicans and five independent citizens.

The Supreme Court ruled in June that federal courts have no role in determining the excesses of partisan gerrymandering but said the states were free to set their own rules or procedures to curb the practice.

In most states, the new boundaries are drawn every 10 years, after the census, through enactment of legislation. Fourteen states have put the process in the hands of commissions, with varying degrees of autonomy. The New Hampshire commission would have had the sole power to create the boundaries, although the maps could have been challenged in court.

In July, Sununu also vetoed four election transparency bills.


Read More

People at voting booths.

A clear breakdown of voter ID laws under the Constitution, federal statutes, and court rulings—plus analysis of new Trump administration proposals to impose nationwide voter identification requirements.

Getty Images, LPETTET

Just the Facts: Voter ID, States’ Powers, and Federal Limits

The Fulcrum approaches news stories with an open mind and skepticism, presenting our readers with a broad spectrum of viewpoints through diligent research and critical thinking. As best we can, remove personal bias from our reporting and seek a variety of perspectives in both our news gathering and selection of opinion pieces. However, before our readers can analyze varying viewpoints, they must have the facts.


Few issues generate more heat and are less understood than voter ID.

Keep ReadingShow less
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
With the focus on the voting posters, the people in the background of the photo sign up to vote.

An analysis of Trump’s SAVE Act strategy, the voter ID debate, and how Pew data is being misused—exploring election integrity, voter suppression, and the political fight shaping U.S. democracy.

Getty Images, SDI Productions

Stop Fighting Voter ID. Start Defining It.

President Trump doesn't need the SAVE America Act to pass. He only needs the debate to continue. Every minute spent arguing about voter suppression repeats the underlying premise — that noncitizen voting is a real and widespread problem — until it feels like an established fact. The question is whether Democrats will contest Republicans’ definition before the frame hardens.

Trump's claim that 88% of Americans support the bill traces to a Pew Research Center survey — a survey that found 83% support a “government-issued photo ID to vote,” not extreme vetting for proof of citizenship. That support included 95% of Republicans and 71% of Democrats, indicating genuine, broad, bipartisan support for a basic civic principle. That's worth taking seriously.

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