Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

GOP hopes of evading partisan gerrymander verdict stalled by N.C. court

North Carolina draft congressional map

The Republican-majority General Assembly has enacted this congressional remap, which would reduce the number of safe GOP seats to eight from 10. Democrats say that's still not balanced enough.

North Carolina General Assembly

The official start of congressional campaigns in North Carolina has been postponed indefinitely by court order, a sign the most important partisan gerrymandering battle in the country is not close to ending.

Instead of candidates filing their paperwork for the primaries starting Dec. 2, the big political news that day will be another round of arguments before the three judges in Charlotte supervising the latest redistricting in the state.

In announcing that new timetable Wednesday, the judges made clear they were not ready to accept the first draft of a new map produced last week by the Republicans who control the General Assembly.


In hopes of settling a lawsuit arguing that the current map so favors Republicans that it violates that state constitutional rights of Democrats, the GOP mapmakers at the statehouse produced a new one. It effectively assures their party will win eight of the 13 seats next year — down from the 10 it holds now.

Democrats immediately told the judges that map was not nearly good enough because it almost assures a GOP majority in the delegation after 2020, even though the congressional vote in the state in recent elections has been just about evenly split.

The judges this fall threw out the state legislative boundaries that similarly favored the GOP and have signaled they are ready to apply the same rationale — that extreme efforts by the cartographers to hold on to power violates the fair elections clause of the constitution — to any House map that gives the GOP too much of an edge.

Their ruling has made North Carolina, so long the center of fights over racial gerrymandering, ground zero in the fight over partisan gerrymandering as well — especially now that the Supreme Court has ruled such fights cannot be settled in the federal courts

Delaying the start of the candidate filing period makes sense because the candidates do not yet know the contours of the districts where they would run. But if the final lines are not drawn soon, the judges will be under pressure to delay the March primaries.


Read More

Person holding "Vote" sign.

Person holding "Vote" sign.

Photo provided

Latino Voters Shift Ahead of Midterm Elections

Two years after providing historic levels of support that helped propel Donald Trump back to the White House, Latino voters are shifting rapidly away from the Republican Party. The realignment is driven by a potent combination of persistent economic anxieties and a sharp backlash against the administration’s aggressive domestic immigration crackdowns. A landmark national poll conducted by NBC News and Telemundo reveals that the President’s approval rating among registered Latino voters has plummeted to just 27%, signaling deep political turbulence for the GOP on the eve of critical midterm elections.

When asked by reporters outside the White House about the plunging numbers, President Trump angrily dismissed the data, labeling the findings as “fake news.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Person placing ballot in voting box

Person placing ballot in voting box

Getty Images

Who Gave the Federal Government the Right to Decide Who Can Vote?

The Trump administration is pressing to remove noncitizens from voter rolls across the country. Yet an important question seems to be missing from the debate: Where, exactly, does the federal government get the authority to impose a citizenship requirement on federal elections? The Constitution does not make citizenship a universal qualification for voting. Instead, Article I, Section 2, Clause 1 states: “The Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.” At the same time, Article I, Section 4, Clause 1 explicitly grants Congress authority over the conduct of federal elections: “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.” In Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc. (2013), the U.S. Supreme Court distinguished Congress’s power to regulate how federal elections are conducted from the states’ authority to determine voter qualifications, explaining that Congress may regulate the “Times, Places and Manner” of elections, “but not who may vote in them.” For much of American history, noncitizens voted in elections in at least 22 states and territories, and some historical research suggests the number may have been as high as 40. Today, certain noncitizens are still permitted to vote in local elections in California, Maryland, Vermont and the District of Columbia. If the Constitution leaves voter qualifications to the states, what gives the federal government the authority to demand otherwise?

A Long History of State Decisions

Keep ReadingShow less
Two young people hold signs on education matters

Two young people hold signs on education matters

Oakland District Teenagers Are Going to the Poll for the Second Time This Nov. 3

Rosanna Custodio was about just 10 years old the first time her teachers walked off the job.

That was 2019, when Oakland teachers went on strike for seven days over low pay, class sizes, and support staff. They walked out again in 2022 over school closures, and again in 2023 over pay and school safety. Rosanna, now 17 and a student at Oakland High School, has kept count of how many times educators have walked out.

Keep ReadingShow less