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

Should the U.S. nationalize elections? A constitutional analysis of federalism, the Elections Clause, and the risks of centralized control over voting systems.

Getty Images, SDI Productions

Why Nationalizing Elections Threatens America’s Federalist Design

The Federalism Question: Why Nationalizing Elections Deserves Skepticism

The renewed push to nationalize American elections, presented as a necessary reform to ensure uniformity and fairness, deserves the same skepticism our founders directed toward concentrated federal power. The proposal, though well-intentioned, misunderstands both the constitutional architecture of our republic and the practical wisdom in decentralized governance.

The Constitutional Framework Matters

The Constitution grants states explicit authority over the "Times, Places and Manner" of holding elections, with Congress retaining only the power to "make or alter such Regulations." This was not an oversight by the framers; it was intentional design. The Tenth Amendment reinforces this principle: powers not delegated to the federal government remain with the states and the people. Advocates for nationalization often cite the Elections Clause as justification, but constitutional permission is not constitutional wisdom.

Keep ReadingShow less
Postal Service Changes Mean Texas Voters Shouldn’t Wait To Mail Voter Registrations and Ballots

A voter registration drive in Corpus Christi, Texas, on Oct. 5, 2024. The deadline to register to vote for Texas' March 3 primary election is Feb. 2, 2026. Changes to USPS policies may affect whether a voter registration application is processed on time if it's not postmarked by the deadline.

Gabriel Cárdenas for Votebeat

Postal Service Changes Mean Texas Voters Shouldn’t Wait To Mail Voter Registrations and Ballots

Texans seeking to register to vote or cast a ballot by mail may not want to wait until the last minute, thanks to new guidance from the U.S. Postal Service.

The USPS last month advised that it may not postmark a piece of mail on the same day that it takes possession of it. Postmarks are applied once mail reaches a processing facility, it said, which may not be the same day it’s dropped in a mailbox, for example.

Keep ReadingShow less