Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Meet the reformer: Kathay Feng, leading a long fight for a legacy group

Kathay Feng of Common Cause outside the Supreme Court

Kathay Feng addresses the media outside the Supreme Court in 2015.

Kathay Feng

For nearly 15 years at Common Cause, one of the country's oldest and most venerated democracy reform organizations, Kathay Feng has been focused intently on efforts to end partisan gerrymandering. After taking over the group's operation in California in 2005, she was at the heart of the lobbying and organizing effort behind creation of an independent redistricting commission in the most populous state. Since 2015 she has led all Common Cause's legal, legislative and ballot initiative redistricting efforts. The Cornell and UCLA Law School graduate has also fought for civil rights and against racial discrimination in Los Angeles. Her answers have been edited for clarity and length.

What's the tweet-length description of your organization?

Holding power accountable for 50 years.


Describe your very first civic engagement.

I ran for student president in high school. Luckily, no one else really wanted the job, so I won. But seriously, in college, when an Asian-American student was targeted and assaulted, I organized students to push the university to include a standard for handling hate crimes in the campus code of conduct.

What was your biggest professional triumph?

Helping lead the campaign that created the nation's first citizens redistricting commission. After three years of work, we knew legislators would never agree to give up power to draw district lines ensuring their own re-election. I never imagined how brutal the resulting initiative battle would be, going against Democrats and most of our progressive friends to take this power away from a Democratically controlled Legislature. I never imagined we would be working with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger or the Chamber of Commerce to pass Proposition 11 in 2008.

And then I did the hardest thing in my life, working with opponents of the proposition to raise money for outreach and public engagement. That ensured 30,000 people applied to be on the commission, which held over 100 meetings and hearings with huge crowds coming to speak about their communities.

The resulting maps have proven to be the most responsive to voter choices over this last decade, with a real shake-up of incumbents. The process has helped inspire people in Ohio, Michigan, Colorado, Missouri and Utah to insist on building a better redistricting mouse trap. And now Virginia and Oregon are approaching doing the same.

And your most disappointing setback?

I was pretty devastated when the Supreme Court handed us a disappointing decision in Common Cause v. Rucho, where we challenged North Carolina's partisan gerrymandering and the court said there was no room in the First or 14th Amendments to bring a federal case.

But then there was a strange twist of fate. Because of our parallel challenge to those lines under the North Carolina Constitution, Stephanie Hofeller, daughter of Republican redistricting operative Thomas Hofeller, turned over documents revealing her father's research on how to subvert the census by asking a citizenship question to gain partisan and racial advantage.

Those documents became part of the legal challenge to putting such a question on the census form. So on the same day we lost at the Supreme Court on partisan gerrymandering, we cheered the court's decision against instituting segregation through the census.

How does your identity influence the way you go about your work?

When I grew up in Texas, I wished I was white. Being Asian-American meant no one knew how to say my name, I was embarrassed to bring the food my mom made for me to lunch, and the teasing and loneliness were relentless. It took me a very long time to find myself.

When I worked for the Asian Pacific American Legal Center, I monitored voting locations where seniors who looked like my grandmother were sent to the back of the line because poll workers could not read their names. I worked with the Ileto family, which lost a member to a hate shooting. I endeavored to rebuild redistricting so no community would be cut up or cut out of political representation. At Common Cause, I have a huge platform to take on the same fundamental challenges — building a society of inclusion, where every voice is heard and respected.

What's the best advice you've ever been given?

Always ask: Who is not at the table who should be?

Create a new flavor for Ben & Jerry's.

Mango Manila Ice. Because, well, mango.

What's your favorite political movie or TV show?

Lately, we are watching "The West Wing" every night with our 13 year old, who's experiencing — for the first time — the comforting blanket of an imaginary White House that cares about doing the right thing, taking science and reason seriously, and struggling in every episode to put the public interest over personal interests.

What's the last thing you do on your phone at night?

Pokemon Go. It's the only thing that allows me to turn off the news and events of the day.

What is your deepest, darkest secret?

I think I just revealed it! But, also, I have started eating cereal in my coffee. It is simultaneously more efficient and surprisingly tastier than the sum of the parts, which is what I strive for as a general operating principle for life.


Read More

Paul Ehrlich was wrong about everything

Crowd of people walking on a street.

Andy Andrews//Getty Images

Paul Ehrlich was wrong about everything

Biologist and author Paul Ehrlich, the most influential Chicken Little of the last century, died at the age of 93 this week. His 1968 book, “The Population Bomb,” launched decades of institutional panic in government, entertainment and journalism.

Ehrlich’s core neo-Malthusian argument was that overpopulation would exhaust the supply of food and natural resources, leading to a cascade of catastrophes around the world. “The Population Bomb” opens with a bold prediction, “The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Bravado Isn’t a Strategy: Why the Iran War Has No Endgame

People clear rubble in a house in the Beryanak District after it was damaged by missile attacks two days before, on March 15, 2026 in Tehran, Iran. The United States and Israel continued their joint attack on Iran that began on February 28. Iran retaliated by firing waves of missiles and drones at Israel, and targeting U.S. allies in the region.

Getty Images, Majid Saeedi

Bravado Isn’t a Strategy: Why the Iran War Has No Endgame

Most of what we have heard from the administration as it pertains to the Iran War is swagger and bro-talk. A few days into the war, the White House released a social media video that combined footage of the bombardment with clips from video games. Not long after, it released a second video, titled “Justice the American Way,” that mixed images of the U.S. military with scenes from movies like Gladiator and Top Gun Maverick.

Speaking to reporters at the Pentagon, War Secretary Pete Hegseth boasted of “death and destruction from the sky all day long.” “They are toast, and they know it,” he said. “This was never meant to be a fair fight... we are punching them while they’re down.”

Keep ReadingShow less
A student in uniform walking through a campus.

A Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) cadet walks through campus November 7, 2003 in Princeton, New Jersey.

Getty Images, Spencer Platt

Hegseth is Dumbing Down the Military (on Purpose)

One day before the United States began an ill-defined and illegal war of indefinite length with Iran, Pete Hegseth angrily attacked a different enemy: the Ivy League. The Secretary of War denounced Ivy League universities as "woke breeding grounds of toxic indoctrination” and then eliminated long-standing college fellowship programs with more than a dozen elite colleges, which had historically served as a pipeline for service members to the upper ranks of military leadership. Of the schools now on Hegseth’s "no-fly list," four sit in the top ten of the World’s Top Universities for 2026. So, why does the Secretary of War not want his armed forces to have the best education available? Because he wants a military without a brain.

For a guy obsessed with being the strongest and most lethal force in the world, cutting access to world-class schools is a bizarre gambit. It does reveal Hegseth doesn’t consider intelligence a factor–let alone an asset–in strength or lethality. That tracks. Hegseth alleges the Ivies infect officers with “globalist and radical ideologies that do not improve our fighting ranks…” God forbid the tip of the sword of our foreign policy has knowledge of international cooperation and global interconnectedness. The Ivy League has its own issues, but the Pentagon’s claim that they "fail to deliver rigorous education grounded in realism” is almost laughable. I’m a veteran Lieutenant Commander with two Ivy League degrees, both paid for with military tuition assistance, and I promise: it was rigorous. Meanwhile, are Hegseth’s performative politics grounded in reality? Attacking Harvard on social media the eve of initiating a new war with a foreign adversary is disgraceful, and even delusional.

Keep ReadingShow less
Are We Prepared for a World Where AI Isn’t at Work?
Person working at a desk with a laptop and books.

Are We Prepared for a World Where AI Isn’t at Work?

Draft an important email without using AI. Write it from scratch — no suggestions, no autocomplete, and no prompt to ChatGPT to compose or revise the email.

Now ask yourself: Did it feel slower? Harder? Slightly uncomfortable?

Keep ReadingShow less