Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Democracy groups rally to defend independent redistricting in Michigan

Democracy groups rally to defend independent redistricting in Michigan

Karen Hobert Flynn, president of Common Cause, speaks in opposition to partisan gerrymandering during a rally in front of the U.S. Supreme Court building in March 2019.

Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images

A coalition of democracy reform groups is rallying in opposition to a lawsuit seeking to block Michigan from moving forward with a voter-approved independent redistricting commission.

The commission was approved as part of a 2018 ballot measure that transferred the power of drawing congressional and legislative districts from lawmakers to a 13-member body consisting of four Democrats, Republicans and five unaffiliated members.


The measure, which was championed by Voters Not Politicians, was in response to the state's practice of drawing once-a-decade voting lines that favored the party in power, a practice known as partisan gerrymandering.

Two lawsuits filed last year have challenged the legality of the redistricting commission, including one by the Michigan Republican Party, which argues the measure's eligibility restrictions that block politically connected individuals, such as politicians, lobbyists and legislative staffers, from serving on the commission are a violation of their free speech and equal protection rights.

On Tuesday, Issue One, Common Cause, RepresentUs and three other political reform groups filed a briefwith the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in support of the commission. The court is reviewing the case on appeal.

"We know that you cannot take the politics out of redistricting, but you can and should take the politicians out," Issue One CEO Nick Penniman, said in a statement. "That is why Issue One believes that independent commissions represent the best tool yet for drawing congressional districts." (Issue One is the incubator of, but editorially independent from, The Fulcrum.)

Leadership Now Project, Equal Citizens Foundation and the Center for the Study of the Presidency and Congress also joined the brief.

Oral arguments in the case are scheduled for March 17.

Brennan Center for Justice and the League of Women Voters of Michigan have also filed briefs in opposition to the lawsuit.

Read More

Jolt Initiative Hits Back at Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton in Fight Over Voter Registration

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, who is running for U.S. Senate, speaks at an event in Lubbock on Oct 7, 2025. Paxton is seeking to shut down Jolt Initiative, a civic engagement group for Latinos, alleging that it's involved in illegal voter registration efforts. The group is fighting back.

Trace Thomas for The Texas Tribune

Jolt Initiative Hits Back at Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton in Fight Over Voter Registration

Jolt Initiative, a nonprofit that aims to increase civic participation among Latinos, is suing Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton to block his efforts to shut the organization down.

Paxton announced Monday that he was seeking to revoke the nonprofit’s charter, alleging that it had orchestrated “a systematic, unlawful voter registration scheme.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Jolt Initiative Hits Back at Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton in Fight Over Voter Registration

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, who is running for U.S. Senate, speaks at an event in Lubbock on Oct 7, 2025. Paxton is seeking to shut down Jolt Initiative, a civic engagement group for Latinos, alleging that it's involved in illegal voter registration efforts. The group is fighting back.

Trace Thomas for The Texas Tribune

Jolt Initiative Hits Back at Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton in Fight Over Voter Registration

Jolt Initiative, a nonprofit that aims to increase civic participation among Latinos, is suing Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton to block his efforts to shut the organization down.

Paxton announced Monday that he was seeking to revoke the nonprofit’s charter, alleging that it had orchestrated “a systematic, unlawful voter registration scheme.”

Keep ReadingShow less
MAGA Gerrymandering, Pardons, Executive Actions Signal Heightened 2026 Voting Rights Threats

A deep dive into ongoing threats to U.S. democracy—from MAGA election interference and state voting restrictions to filibuster risks—as America approaches 2026 and 2028.

Getty Images, SDI Productions

MAGA Gerrymandering, Pardons, Executive Actions Signal Heightened 2026 Voting Rights Threats

Tuesday, November 4, demonstrated again that Americans want democracy and US elections are conducted credibly. Voter turnout was strong; there were few administrative glitches, but voters’ choices were honored.

The relatively smooth elections across the country nonetheless took place despite electiondenial and anti-voting efforts continuing through election day. These efforts will likely intensify as we move toward the 2026 midterms and 2028 presidential election. The MAGA drive for unprecedented mid-decade, extreme political gerrymandering of congressional districts to guarantee their control of the House of Representatives is a conspicuous thrust of their campaign to remain in power at all costs.

Keep ReadingShow less
A person putting on an "I Voted" sticker.

Major redistricting cases in Louisiana and Texas threaten the Voting Rights Act and the representation of Black and Latino voters across the South.

Getty Images, kali9

The Voting Rights Act Is Under Attack in the South

Under court order, Louisiana redrew to create a second majority-Black district—one that finally gave true representation to the community where my family lives. But now, that district—and the entire Voting Rights Act (VRA)—are under attack. Meanwhile, here in Texas, Republican lawmakers rammed through a mid-decade redistricting plan that dramatically reduces Black and Latino voting power in Congress. As a Louisiana-born Texan, it’s disheartening to see that my rights to representation as a Black voter in Texas, and those of my family back home in Louisiana, are at serious risk.

Two major redistricting cases in these neighboring states—Louisiana v. Callais and Texas’s statewide redistricting challenge, LULAC v. Abbott—are testing the strength and future of the VRA. In Louisiana, the Supreme Court is being asked to decide not just whether Louisiana must draw a majority-Black district to comply with Section 2 of the VRA, but whether considering race as one factor to address proven racial discrimination in electoral maps can itself be treated as discriminatory. It’s an argument that contradicts the purpose of the VRA: to ensure all people, regardless of race, have an equal opportunity to elect candidates amid ongoing discrimination and suppression of Black and Latino voters—to protect Black and Brown voters from dilution.

Keep ReadingShow less