Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

One big ballot win, one big loss for the cause of redistricting reform

Virginia voters pass redistricting measure

Voters in Virginia approved a ballot measure to create a bipartisan redistricting commission.

Andrew Caballero-Reynolds/Getty Images

When it comes to fighting gerrymandering, the election produced one big step forward and one solid step back.

Voters in increasingly blue Virginia overwhelmingly approved a ballot measure to redesign the legislative map-making process starting next year in a bid to make it less dominated by partisan power plays. But at the same time Tuesday, the electorate in reliably red Missouri narrowly decided to go the other way, with a rare repudiation of a citizen-driven effort to fix democracy's challenges endorsed just two years ago.

The votes were the last public input ahead of the national redrawing of congressional and state legislative district lines that happens once a decade, after the census. Results Tuesday suggest strongly that Republicans will control the mapmaking in a majority of states, as they did for the decade now ending. Measures to combat partisan gerrymandering failed to get on the ballot in four other states — Oregon, Nevada, Arkansas and North Dakota — because of the harsh difficulties of gathering petition signatures during a pandemic.


Here's more on the two states where voters had a chance to vote on the redistricting process:

Virginia

The measure that was approved — with 66 percent support in virtually complete results — will take line-drawing power away from the General Assembly and governor. Instead, a bipartisan commission of eight lawmakers and eight citizens will be in charge. If a supermajority of members don't approve of the new congressional and state legislative maps, then the state Supreme Court will step in to draw the lines.

The overhaul to Virginia's redistricting process was a long and hard-fought battle. Only after being endorsed by the General Assembly two sessions in a row was it put on the ballot.

Many Democrats were critical of the proposal, despite supporting it when they were the legislative minority in 2018. If the measure hadn't passed, Democrats in total control in Richmond would have had the power to execute a partisan gerrymander next year.

Those opposed to the change said it won't do enough to tackle partisan mapmaking since lawmakers will still be able to serve on the redistricting commission. They also pointed out that commissioners don't have to take racial equity into consideration when drawing maps.

While proponents conceded that a truly independent commission would have been better, they said this bipartisan panel is a good step forward for Virginia. Such genuinely independent panels will do the job next year, sometimes for both Congress and statehouses, in 13 states.

Missouri

A multifaceted package of governmental rules changes was approved with just 51 percent support — a margin of just 59,000 votes out of 2.9 million cast. The central redistricting provision sounds obscure but is meaningful: It eliminates the nonpartisan job of state demographer, created by a 60 percent statewide vote just two years ago to take charge of drawing the legislative lines, and creates in its place a pair of redistricting commissions appointed by the governor.

The reversal was put on the ballot by the Republicans in charge in Jefferson City, and they will now have the power to draw lines that assure they hold power. Opponents of their proposal say it will allow one of the most severe partisan gerrymanders in the country — potentially allowing a party winning just 50 percent of the overall vote to net as many as 65 percent of the General Assembly seats. It also breaks from standard districting practice nationwide, by decreeing that the districts be newly drawn based on the populations of adult citizens, not all people.

The measure may have passed because it was attached to a provision designed to be a sweetener with broad public appeal — a ban on lobbyist gifts and lower campaign contribution limits.

Read More

U.S. President Barack Obama speaking on the phone in the Oval Office.

U.S. President Barack Obama talks President Barack Obama talks with President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan during a phone call from the Oval Office on November 2, 2009 in Washington, DC.

Getty Images, The White House

‘Obama, You're 15 Years Too Late!’

The mid-decade redistricting fight continues, while the word “hypocrisy” has become increasingly common in the media.

The origin of mid-decade redistricting dates back to the early history of the United States. However, its resurgence and legal acceptance primarily stem from the Texas redistricting effort in 2003, a controversial move by the Republican Party to redraw the state's congressional districts, and the 2006 U.S. Supreme Court decision in League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry. This decision, which confirmed that mid-decade redistricting is not prohibited by federal law, was a significant turning point in the acceptance of this practice.

Keep ReadingShow less
Hand of a person casting a ballot at a polling station during voting.

Gerrymandering silences communities and distorts elections. Proportional representation offers a proven path to fairer maps and real democracy.

Getty Images, bizoo_n

Gerrymandering Today, Gerrymandering Tomorrow, Gerrymandering Forever

In 1963, Alabama Governor George Wallace declared, "Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever." (Watch the video of his speech.) As a politically aware high school senior, I was shocked by the venom and anger in his voice—the open, defiant embrace of systematic disenfranchisement, so different from the quieter racism I knew growing up outside Boston.

Today, watching politicians openly rig elections, I feel that same disbelief—especially seeing Republican leaders embrace that same systematic approach: gerrymandering now, gerrymandering tomorrow, gerrymandering forever.

Keep ReadingShow less
An oversized ballot box surrounded by people.

Young people worldwide form new parties to reshape politics—yet America’s two-party system blocks them.

Getty Images, J Studios

No Country for Young Politicians—and How To Fix That

In democracies around the world, young people have started new political parties whenever the establishment has sidelined their views or excluded them from policymaking. These parties have sometimes reinvigorated political competition, compelled established parties to take previously neglected issues seriously, or encouraged incumbent leaders to find better ways to include and reach out to young voters.

In Europe, a trio in their twenties started Volt in 2017 as a pan-European response to Brexit, and the party has managed to win seats in the European Parliament and in some national legislatures. In Germany, young people concerned about climate change created Klimaliste, a party committed to limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, as per the Paris Agreement. Although the party hasn’t won seats at the federal level, they have managed to win some municipal elections. In Chile, leaders of the 2011 student protests, who then won seats as independent candidates, created political parties like Revolución Democrática and Convergencia Social to institutionalize their movements. In 2022, one of these former student leaders, Gabriel Boric, became the president of Chile at 36 years old.

Keep ReadingShow less
How To Fix Gerrymandering: A Fair-Share Rule for Congressional Redistricting

Demonstrators gather outside of The United States Supreme Court during an oral arguments in Gill v. Whitford to call for an end to partisan gerrymandering on October 3, 2017 in Washington, DC

Getty Images, Olivier Douliery

How To Fix Gerrymandering: A Fair-Share Rule for Congressional Redistricting

The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield, and government to gain ground. ~ Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Col. Edward Carrington, Paris, 27 May 1788

The Problem We Face

The U.S. House of Representatives was designed as the chamber of Congress most directly tethered to the people. Article I of the Constitution mandates that seats be apportioned among the states according to population and that members face election every two years—design features meant to keep representatives responsive to shifting public sentiment. Unlike the Senate, which prioritizes state sovereignty and representation, the House translates raw population counts into political voice: each House district is to contain roughly the same number of residents, ensuring that every citizen’s vote carries comparable weight. In principle, then, the House serves as the nation’s demographic mirror, channeling the diverse preferences of the electorate into lawmaking and acting as a safeguard against unresponsive or oligarchic governance.

Nationally, the mismatch between the overall popular vote and the partisan split in House seats is small, with less than a 1% tilt. But state-level results tell a different story. Take Connecticut: Democrats hold all five seats despite Republicans winning over 40% of the statewide vote. In Oklahoma, the inverse occurs—Republicans control every seat even though Democrats consistently earn around 40% of the vote.

Keep ReadingShow less