Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Michigan’s new curb on partisan mapmakers survives in federal court

Michigan congressional map

Republicans held a majority of Michigan's congressional district through the 2010s, until Democrats achieved a split in 2018. (Rep. Justin Amash's 3rd District is shaded purple, since he left the Republican Party.)

mapchart.net

Michigan may continue planning for its new voter-mandated independent redistricting commission, a federal judge has ruled, because Republicans are not likely to win their lawsuit alleging the panel's membership requirements are unconstitutional.

U.S. District Judge Janet Neff on Monday rejected the GOP's bid to stop implementation of a state constitutional amendment approved last fall.

In one of the biggest victories ever for opponents of partisan gerrymandering, 61 percent of voters decided to take the drawing of the next decade's legislative and congressional lines away from the Legislature and give it to a new panel — where a plurality must be without political connections or activities on their resume.


The Michigan GOP and several individual Republicans say those restrictions on membership limit their rights to free speech and free association. No party officials, lobbyists, consultants or any of their relatives may sit in five of the 13 seats; the others are split between Republicans and Democrats.

Neff, who was picked for the court in Grand Rapids by President George W. Bush, sent a clear signal where her formal ruling would come down. "The eligibility provisions at issue do not impose severe burdens on plaintiffs' First Amendment rights," she wrote. "There is no right to state office or appointment."

Republican officials signaled they would keep pursuing their arguments, either in this case or another federal lawsuit alleging the membership limits violate federal antidiscrimination laws.

Republicans drew the current boundaries ahead of the 2012 elections and they worked mostly as designed, with comfortable GOP control of the state House and Senate through the decade and a GOP majority in the congressional delegation until last fall, when the Democratic midterm wave produced at 7-7 split.

Thousands have already asked for a seat on the new commission, where the pay will be $40,000.The deadline for applying is June 1.

Read More

A person in a military uniform holding a gavel.

As the Trump administration redefines “Warrior Ethos,” U.S. military leaders face a crucial test: defend democracy or follow unlawful orders.

Getty Images, Liudmila Chernetska

Warrior Ethos or Rule of Law? The Military’s Defining Moment

Does Secretary Hegseth’s extraordinary summoning of hundreds of U.S. command generals and admirals to a Sept. 30 meeting and the repugnant reinstatement of Medals of Honor to 20 participants in the infamous 1890 Wounded Knee Massacre—in which 300 Lakota Sioux men, women, and children were killed—foreshadow the imposition of a twisted approach to U.S. “Warrior Ethos”? Should military leaders accept an ethos that ignores the rule of law?

Active duty and retired officers must trumpet a resounding: NO, that is not acceptable. And, we civilians must realize the stakes and join them.

Keep ReadingShow less
Yes, They Are Trying To Kill Us
Provided

Yes, They Are Trying To Kill Us

In the rush to “dismantle the administrative state,” some insist that freeing people from “burdensome bureaucracy” will unleash thriving. Will it? Let’s look together.

A century ago, bureaucracy was minimal. The 1920s followed a worldwide pandemic that killed an estimated 17.4–50 million people. While the virus spread, the Great War raged; we can still picture the dehumanizing use of mustard gas and trench warfare. When the war ended, the Roaring Twenties erupted as an antidote to grief. Despite Prohibition, life was a party—until the crash of 1929. The 1930s opened with a global depression, record joblessness, homelessness, and hunger. Despair spread faster than the pandemic had.

Keep ReadingShow less