Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Michigan GOP fails again to stop new redistricting panel

Michigan flag

Michigan has been the biggest redistricting battleground this decade.

RiverNorthPhotography/Getty Images

Another Republican attempt to block Michigan's independent redistricting commission was dismissed Monday by a federal judge.

The state Republican Party's lawsuit argued that restrictions on who may serve on the new panel violated the free speech and free association rights of potential GOP commissioners — the same argument a federal appeals court rebuffed just three months ago.

Battleground Michigan has been at the heart of the gerrymandering debate since the start of the decade, when Republicans took control of Lansing and drew some of the most assertively partisan legislative and congressional maps in the country. In response, 61 percent in a grassroots-driven 2018 referendum decided to turn the next decade's line-setting over to a panel outside the control of politicians.


Judge Janet Neff ruled in favor of Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson — signaling that the new lawsuit was ultimately no different, constitutionally speaking, from a remarkably similar lawsuit from the state party that was dismissed this spring by the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

"The parties have not identified any intervening change in facts or law, and the 6th Circuit's rulings are clearly stated and mirror this court's own assessment of the legal sufficiency of plaintiffs' claims," she wrote.

Michiganders who have in the last six years been a candidate, elected official, party officer, political consultant, lobbyist or legislative employee may not serve on the commission — nor may members of their immediate families.

Republicans argued these restrictions disqualify too many people from applying and that the commission's rules violate their freedom of association, as applicants for the commission are required to disclose which party they are affiliated with without needing consent from said party.

The 13-member commission will consist of four Democrats, four Republicans and five independents.

Nancy Wang, executive director of Voters Not Politicians, the group that advocated for the ballot measure, celebrated the win: "Michigan's Constitution begins with, 'All political power is inherent in the people.' The courts have vindicated the people's right to use our political power to take back our redistricting process and unrig our elections."


Read More

Members of a women's softball team cheerfully join hands during practice on a sunny day, showcasing team spirit, cooperation, and enthusiasm for the sport.

Do trans women have a strength advantage? A look at studies on hormone therapy, muscle mass, and why it should determine eligibility in women's sports.

luza studios/Getty Images

Trans Females Are Not Biological Males - Let Them Play on Female Teams

Most Americans, Democrats as well as Republicans—many following the lead of President Trump—feel that it is not right for trans females to participate in women's sports. But the trans community, supported by those on the left wing of the Democratic Party, insists that this is part of ensuring the rights of trans people. The issue has been divisive among Democrats.

This is a complex issue. On the one hand, boys are boys, and girls are girls. That's the basic fact behind male and female sports, other than some intramural school sports that have boys and girls on the same team. Because boys are biologically stronger and faster than girls, separate leagues have been developed for both. This has nothing to do with gender identity; it is just a reflection of biological fact.

Keep ReadingShow less
An aerial view of a Flock camera

An aerial view of a Flock camera in Burbank, California. U.S. President Donald Trump expressed support for Flock cameras, saying he likes the AI-powered surveillance technology because of its use by law enforcement, despite concerns that it infringes on privacy.

(Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)

Flock Cameras Are Coming Down – but We Need More To Dismantle the Surveillance State

Chances are, you’ve seen one in your neighborhood. Flock cameras have become a major flashpoint for voters in the leadup to the midterms. The concept sounds straight out of 1984 — a network of government-owned cameras that track your movements — it’s no wonder that Americans across party lines are demanding their states and towns sever ties with the controversial company. Surveillance fears are only getting stronger as we enter the AI era.

But the problem isn’t just Flock. These cameras, Automated License Plate Readers or ALPRs to be exact, are a symptom of a larger “surveil first, ask questions later” attitude that has been adopted by local and federal government for decades. In recent years, the federal government has been dramatically expanding the nation’s surveillance infrastructure. This has taken many forms, from facial recognition technology at the airport, to law enforcement monitoring your mail, to the government watching what you’re posting on your personal social media pages. Since April, many Democrats and Republicans in Congress have united to stop what would effectively be a blank check for surveillance via FISA reauthorization, demanding surveillance reforms such as closing the “data broker loophole”, which allows the government to buy Americans’ personal data without a warrant.

Keep ReadingShow less