Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

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.”

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

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

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