Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

The worst gerrymandered state no longer?

Supreme Court

The Supreme Court decision likely means Louisiana voters will elect a second Black member of their congressional delegation.

Nicolas Economou/NurPhoto via Getty Images

On May 15 the Supreme Court directed Louisiana to move forward with two majority-Black districts. The ruling allows the state to use a new congressional map for the 2024 elections.

The Supreme Court ruling overturns a lower federal court decision that barred the state from using the new map on the grounds that state legislators had relied too heavily on race when the lines were drawn earlier in the year. This ruling was unsigned, which is the custom in emergency applications to the Supreme Court. The action was taken after state Attorney General Elizabeth Murrill urged the Supreme Court to act quickly since the Louisiana secretary of state indicated that May 15 was the deadline to prepare for the 2024 elections.


“This year, [Black voters] will have the opportunity to elect a candidate of their choice in two of the state’s six congressional districts as Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act requires,” Marina Jenkns, executive director of the National Redistricting Foundation, said after the ruling was issued. “What unfolded in Louisiana underscores that anti-democratic forces will continue to do all they can to gerrymander, and we must remain vigilant, but today they have again been stopped. Tomorrow, the fight to protect the Voting Rights Act will continue.”

The ruling is particularly impactful given the slim, four-seat majority the Republicans have in the House of Representatives and the likelihood that the additional Black district will elect a Democrat.

Gerrymandering reform has long been a top priority of the democracy reform movement. While this Supreme Court ruling is not a legislative reform, it is consistent with the goals of the movement. Reformers have long argued that the redrawing of congressional lines to satisfy partisan goals must stop in order to have more competitive congressional elections. According to polls, 81 percent of Americans said they’d like to end partisan gerrymandering and stop the manipulation of congressional district lines that it brings.

Reformers are working on a variety of proposals to ensure that redistricting commissions are truly independent and free of political influence. This could be done if the commissions included members of several parties and represented independent votes and if enforceable standards were established for district maps.

Most Americans oppose partisan gerrymandering, but half do not know whether the practice occurs in their states.

The Fulcrum will continue its coverage on this critical issue to keep the public informed. We previously reported:

Two-thirds of Americans told pollsters for The Economist and YouGov that states drawing legislative districts to favor one party is a “major problem” with just 23 percent saying it’s a “minor problem.” But 50 percent said they do not know whether districts are drawn by the legislature or an independent commission in their own state.

We will continue to identify the worst gerrymandering districts and to keep our readers informed of pending and adjudicated court rulings.

While the districts certainly may have changed in the latest round mapmaking, the depth of the problem has not. Both Democrats and Republicans continue to design maps to ensure that their party maintains power.

Every 10 years, states draw new congressional and state legislative district lines. Often, mapmakers engage in gerrymandering — drawing lines in a way that artificially advantages one person, party or group over another. The anti-corruption group RepresentUs explains the ensuing problem:

“Instead of voters choosing politicians, it’s the other way around – politicians are choosing their voters. They do it by gerrymandering voting districts to guarantee their own re-election. That’s corruption at the core of our political process.”

Former Attorney General Eric Holder, who launched a anti-gerrymanding organization that primarily helps Democrats, had this to say:

“This is an unequivocal victory for Black Louisianians, who have fought tenaciously for the equal representation they deserve as American citizens. The state, consistent with the law, will now have a second Black opportunity district in its congressional map this fall. It is also a clear message to those who intend to gerrymander in order to increase their illegitimate power at the expense of voters of color: you will be stopped.”


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