Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Michigan won’t have to redraw its gerrymandered maps

Michigan won’t have to redraw its gerrymandered maps

The Supreme Court, in light of its decision in June to avoid partisan gerrymander disputes, overturned a lower federal court ruling that would have required Michigan to redraw its district lines.

Drew Angerer/Getty Photos

Michigan won't have to redraw its gerrymandered congressional and state district maps, as a federal court had required in an April ruling.

The Supreme Court on Monday overturned the ruling in a one-sentence order, which was expected in light of the justice's 5-4 decision in June that prohibited federal courts from hearing cases challenging legislative boundaries on the grounds they were drawn to favor one political party over another, a practice known as partisan gerrymandering.

In Michigan's case, the Republicans had drawn the districts to cement their hold on the state and congressional districts.


Earlier this month, the court threw out a similar lower court ruling related to Ohio's map, which was ordered to be redrawn after the court found the Republican-drawn map was designed to dilute Democratic votes.

The June ruling by the high court was in cases involving a Republican gerrymander of North Carolina and a Democratic drawing of lines in Maryland.

Since that ruling, some activists have started looking to the state courts for relief from gerrymandering under the constitutions of those states, while others have turned to the state legislatures. The voters in Michigan decided in a referendum last year to take redistricting power away from the Legislature and give it to a new citizen commission.


Read More

Aspirations for the American Experiment Versus the Save Act of 2026
a person is casting a vote into a box

Aspirations for the American Experiment Versus the Save Act of 2026

The Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act stands as the direct antithesis of our founders' aspirations for the American Experiment, eroding the core principles of popular sovereignty and individual liberty. Rather than cultivating a government that derives its "just powers from the consent of the governed," this legislative measure inverts that relationship. It transforms a natural right into a government-administered privilege, erecting bureaucratic barriers that conflict with the expansive, participatory democratic republic the Framers sought to construct.

Subverting the Consent of the Governed: the foundational premise of the American Experiment, as articulated by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence, is that the legitimacy of a government hinges entirely on the active consent of its citizens. The SAVE Act disrupts this dynamic by fundamentally shifting the burden of proof.

Keep ReadingShow less
People wearing vests with "ICE" and "Police" on the back.
The latest shutdown deal kept government open while exposing Congress’s reliance on procedural oversight rather than structural limits on ICE.
Getty Images, Douglas Rissing

Where Can Immigration Enforcement Take Place?

This nonpartisan policy brief, written by an ACE fellow, is republished by The Fulcrum as part of our partnership with the Alliance for Civic Engagement and our NextGen initiative — elevating student voices, strengthening civic education, and helping readers better understand democracy and public policy.

The Origins: The Clinton Administration

Keep ReadingShow less