Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

The Fahey Q&A with Daela Taeoalii-Tipton, who pushed for Virginia’s new mapmaking rules

Opinion

​Daela Taeoalii-Tipton and OneVirginia2021

Daela Taeoalii-Tipton (left) meets with OneVirginia2021's Young Fellows during their cohort orientation in November 2019.

Courtesy Daela Taeoalii-Tipton
After organizing the Voters Not Politicians 2018 ballot initiative that put citizens in charge of drawing Michigan's legislative maps, Fahey became founding executive director of The People, which is forming statewide networks to promote government accountability. She interviews colleagues in the world of democracy reform each month for our Opinion section.

Since graduating from Stanford with a degree in earth systems, Daela Taeoalii-Tipton has come to realize that democracy reform is a key step toward achieving environmental justice. Last year she joined Green Corps, which connected her with the passionate movement working to eliminate partisan gerrymandering in Virginia. She went on to serve as deputy director of FairMapsVA, which helped persuade 66 percent of the state's voters to approve a new commission for drawing the state's legislative and congressional boundaries.

Our recent conversation has been edited for clarity and brevity.


Fahey: Tell us about your win!

Taeoalii-Tipton: Question 1 was approved 2-to-1, really exciting and better than we anticipated — because there were some large counties with Democratic bases that had come out against it. Even with that opposition, voters chose a bipartisan redistricting commission, which will bring citizens to the table, over the status quo. Our campaign immediately made it clear in our post-election announcement that, regardless of how you voted, we're here to collaborate and do our best to have the most successful redistricting process possible.

Fahey: Can you explain how this changes the way electoral lines are drawn in Virginia?

Taeoalii-Tipton: Instead of the politicians in power picking their voters every 10 years — as has always been done in Virginia — eight legislators and eight citizens, balanced by party, will draw districts in a completely transparent way. For the first time, there will be public meetings and hearings so citizens can be informed on the drawing of fair maps. The amendment also creates new civil rights protections in the state Constitution, which is important since the Voting Rights Act got weakened by the Supreme Court in 2013. No matter what happens at the federal level, there are now protections in our Constitution to make sure "districts shall provide, where practicable, opportunities for racial and ethnic communities to elect candidates of their choice."

Fahey: Can you explain the enabling legislation and why it's important?

Taeoalii-Tipton: The law, enacted two weeks after Election Day, takes our commission to the next level. The General Assembly simply won't approve constitutional amendments that are many pages long, so our ballot measure only set the framework of the commission. The enabling legislation restricts conflicts of interest by prohibiting commissioners who have served in a partisan capacity. It ensures commissioners reflect the diversity of Virginia. It dictates transparency, with all commission data public under the Freedom of Information Act. And if the commission is unable to agree on maps or the General Assembly doesn't approve the panel's maps, which means the state Supreme Court of Virginia has to step in, it requires the court to appoint one person from each party to draw the maps.

Fahey: The application for citizens to serve on the commission is already open. Who should apply and how can they?

Taeoalii-Tipton: We want to see a diverse applicant pool so the commission ultimately reflects the state's racial, ethnic, gender, and geographic diversity. You don't need to have data analysis skills or experience with mapping software to be qualified. The best commissioners are going to care that communities are fairly represented by district maps — citizens involved in their local communities and good at listening to others. Potential applicants can find information online. The deadline to apply is Dec. 28.

Fahey: How did your previous work lead you to redistricting reform?

Taeoalii-Tipton: I grew up in Salt Lake City, surrounded by beautiful mountains and deserts, and one of my favorite things was going outside to learn about the local ecosystems. My college work focused on food sovereignty and climate change adaptation because my family is Pacific Islander — they're from Samoa and Tonga — and climate change is a really big issue there. I was mystified to learn how, even though many Americans support climate action regardless of party affiliation, our policies and politics don't reflect that. Digging deeper, I learned about the pitfalls of our democracy and the power of organizing to promote long standing change that's impossible for politicians to ignore. Though not directly related to issues like environmental justice, democracy reforms are foundational to ensuring all of our voices are valued and our elected officials truly represent the people.

Fahey: Your initiative is unique in that the two major parties actually worked together on reform. How did your group foster such bipartisan support?

Taeoalii-Tipton: There was a strong emphasis on making sure our board was bipartisan and the legislators we worked with were bipartisan. That meant Republicans who voiced their support for redistricting reform when their party held control of the General Assembly, and Democrats who advocated for reform even when they took the majority last year. But we also were purposeful in our communications: We wanted volunteers and voters to understand that redistricting affects all of us, and just because you may have a representative that truly represents you, that doesn't mean all folks enjoy the privilege. We helped voters understand that both parties gerrymander, all voters suffer, and that's why it's so important to have a nonpartisan movement.

Fahey: If you were speaking to a high school student or a new immigrant to this country, how would you describe what being an American means to you?

Taeoalii-Tipton: I sometimes struggle with this because the foundation of our country has been cracked from the beginning, based on who was in the room writing our founding documents, the enslavement of African people and the stealing of land and livelihood from indigenous peoples. Sometimes it's hard for me to see how our country could ever move past that. But working in this nonpartisan movement and seeing people come together to recognize the sovereignty of one another's voice and votes — regardless of background and party affiliation — has helped me feel so much more hopeful about our country moving forward.


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.

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
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