Skip to content
Project 2025
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories
How Weak Federal Ethics Laws Enable Presidential Profiteering

How Weak Federal Ethics Laws Enable Presidential Profiteering

The Iran War’s Price Tag: Billions Lost While Americans Go Without

The Iran War’s Price Tag: Billions Lost While Americans Go Without

Protestors holding signs, many that say "Stop Bombing Iran."

Trump’s ‘Just for Fun’ War Talk Shows a Dangerous Trivialization

Trump’s Racism Carries No Consequences—And That’s Scary

Trump’s Racism Carries No Consequences—And That’s Scary

Bravado Isn’t a Strategy: Why the Iran War Has No Endgame

Bravado Isn’t a Strategy: Why the Iran War Has No Endgame

Gerrymandering and voting rights under review by Supreme Court again

Supreme Court
Nicolas Economou/NurPhoto via Getty Images
David L. Nevins
By David L. NevinsDec 26, 2024
David L. Nevins
David L. Nevins serves as publisher of The Fulcrum. Additionally, Nevins serves as co-founder and Board Chairman of the Bridge Alliance. Nevins brings business acumen, vision and a tireless this-must-and-can-be-done zeal to the burgeoning movement to bridge divides to transform the political process. As a business leader, Nevins excels at building bridges between people and organizations from the right, left and center for civilized conversation and then action. He co-founded the Bridge Alliance because, as he says, “No matter how well managed and how well funded anyone organization is, significant political reform will not happen without an alliance to further collaborative interactions. Together we can and will raise the collective impact of all.” He is a member of the Aspen Institute Society of Fellows, with a focus on the Aspen Rodel Fellowship in Public Leadership, he established and continues to work with The Nevins Democracy Leaders program at Penn State University. Nevins graduated with honors in economics from Penn State in 1969 and received an M.B.A. in finance from the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania in 1971.
See More Writings by author

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.

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.


Latest news

Empty Bravado: Trump’s Hollow Swagger Behind Iran War
Ethics & Leadership

Empty Bravado: Trump’s Hollow Swagger Behind Iran War

People at voting booths.
Electoral Reforms

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

Kristi Noem facing away with her hand up to be sworn in as she testifies.
Democracy

Kristi Noem is a Criminal. They Fired Her Because She’s a Woman

Pew Research Report: Americans’ Attitudes on Abortion Are More Divisive
Health

Pew Research Report: Americans’ Attitudes on Abortion Are More Divisive

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.

AP Photo/John Locher

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
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
© Copyright 2026