Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Gerrymandering and voting rights under review by Supreme Court again

Supreme Court
Nicolas Economou/NurPhoto via Getty Images

On Dec. 13, The Fulcrum identified the worst examples of congressional gerrymandering currently in use.

In that news report, David Meyers wrote:


“With two post-census election cycles in the books, congressional district maps are mostly set for the remainder of the decade – which means we will know the outcomes of the vast majority of House elections before voters even cast ballots in November 2026, 2028 and 2030.

That’s because most states allow politicians to draw district maps, enabling them to use voter data to create maps that favor the party that controls the legislature. Both parties use practices like “cracking” and “packing” to divide minority-party communities across multiple districts or combine them into as few districts as possible, all to guarantee control in future elections.

This practice is known as gerrymandering, and when practiced for partisan purposes it is legal, according to the Supreme Court."

Working with gerrymandering experts, Meyers identified a dozen egregious examples of gerrymandering; however, given how common the practice is, not all districts were included.

Among those not included was a district in Louisiana that is worthy of coverage.

In 2022, the National Redistricting Foundation initiated Galmon v. Ardoin, consolidated with Robinson v. Ardoin, a lawsuit that challenged Louisiana's gerrymandered congressional map in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. NRF ultimately was successful in requiring the state to enact a new map that includes two Black opportunity districts in compliance with Section 2.

Immediately after enactment of the new map, a new lawsuit was filed and a lower court wrongly struck down Louisiana’s VRA-compliant map. Following that decision, the NRF-supported plaintiffs, alongside the Robinson plaintiffs, filed an emergency stay request to the U.S. Supreme Court asking the court to block the lower court’s decision and keep the VRA-compliant map in place for the 2024 election while the case was appealed — and the court did so. Now the Supreme Court will consider Louisiana v. Callais in its current 2024-2025 term. This case will not only determine the future of Louisiana’s VRA-compliant congressional map, but also could impact the future of critical VRA protections. Learn more about the NRF’s work here.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

The Fulcrum will continue to keep our readers apprised of updates on this critically important issue related to the health of our democracy

Nevins is co-publisher of The Fulcrum and co-founder and board chairman of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.

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