Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

N.C. judges: statehouse lines OK, but House districts gerrymandered

Supreme Court protest on gerrymandering

Judges in North Carolina this week ruled that congressional districts boundaries violated the state constitution and needed to be redrawn, while approving of state legislative districts. The decision was left to state courts after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled this summer that federal courts had no role in determining whether districts were gerrymandered. Here, opponents of gerrymandering protest on the steps of the Supreme Court on the day of the March oral arguments in the case.

Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images

When the Supreme Court decided in June that the issue of gerrymandering was beyond the authority of the federal courts to decide, it invited state courts to step into the void.

On Monday, judges in North Carolina did just that, offering a split verdict: The judges approved the maps drawn for the state legislative districts but blocked the boundaries drawn for congressional districts.

The three-judge panel ruled that it was likely that the plaintiffs would ultimately succeed in proving that the U.S. House districts are "extreme partisan gerrymanders" in violation of the state constitution.

The judges acknowledged that redrawing congressional maps at such a late date could disrupt and even delay next year's congressional elections. "These consequences pale in comparison to voters of our state proceeding to the polls to vote, yet again, in congressional elections administered pursuant to maps drawn in violation of the North Carolina constitution."


The current congressional district boundaries were drawn based on the 2010 census.

The state judges, ironically, relied in their ruling on the findings from the federal court challenge to the districts which the U.S. Supreme Court overturned. The state judges said that case outlined a "detailed record of both partisan intent and the intended partisan effects of the 2016 districts."

The state judges cited the role played by Thomas Hofeller, a now-deceased Republican strategist and expert on drawing maps, that gave the GOP partisan advantage. Hofeller was instructed by GOP state legislators to draw maps to maintain the party's 10 to 3 advantage in the U.S. House. Prior to that, the state had a 7 to 6 breakdown of Democrats and Republicans in the House.

The plaintiffs who challenged the state legislative district maps — which were redrawn after the state court in September found some to be partisan gerrymanders — could appeal the decision to the state Supreme Court.

So, could the election officials who are defendants in the challenge to the congressional districts.

But the three-judge panel suggested another solution: The General Assembly could "on its own initiative, act immediately and with due haste to enact new congressional district."


Read More

President Trump answers questions from reporters.

U.S. President Donald Trump answers questions from reporters before boarding Air Force One on August 21, 2026 in Joint Base Andrews, Maryland.

(Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)

Trump’s White House Press Ban Violates 1st Amendment

The principle is simple. Just like politicians are not supposed to pick their voters, government officials don’t get to pick the reporters who cover them.

If they did, the First Amendment would be meaningless. and we would no longer live in anything resembling a constitutional republic. That is why President Trump’s September 18 announcement that he is banning reporters from CNN, MSNow, and Politico from the White House is so dangerous.

Keep ReadingShow less
White marble exterior of the United States Capitol, often called the Capitol Building, is the home of the United States Congress and the seat of the legislative branch of the U.S. federal government

The CLARITY Act crypto bill failed a procedural vote on Sept. 15, but it could return. Here's what it does, who would regulate crypto, and the Trump angle.

Richard Sharrocks / Getty Images

The CLARITY Act

The CLARITY Act

The CLARITY Act, which failed in a procedural vote on Sept. 15, and a new venture by the Trump family’s World Liberty Financial cryptocurrency company made us think it was time to write about the cryptocurrency legislation. Even though it’s not currently active, the bill could come back.

Keep ReadingShow less
When Money Trumps Life

U.S. President Donald Trump speaks during the 81st session of the United Nations (U.N.) General Assembly at U.N. Headquarters on September 22, 2026 in New York City.

Alexi J. Rosenfeld/Getty Images

When Money Trumps Life

Last week at the United Nations, Donald Trump showed the world just how little he values human life. In a single speech, he rattled off a laundry list of “hoaxes” to write off: climate change, AI, “Russia hoax,” “Ukraine hoax,” and more. Climate change, AI, and modern warfare all pose existential threats to civilization as we know it, and yet our president seems hellbent on gaslighting our fears while accelerating problems that threaten our survival. What would make a person behave in such a self-sabotaging way? Well, perhaps we should, as they say, follow the money.

Earlier this month, the UN warned that Earth is already 1.4°C hotter than before the industrial age and set to blow past the 1.5°C limit in the next few years. The World Health Organization projects that such warming will cause roughly 250,000 additional deaths a year starting in 2030. Any leader who values human life should recognize this as the existential threat it is and change course. Instead, Trump has pulled the U.S. out of the UN's founding climate treaty, and his EPA scrapped the scientific finding underpinning federal limits on greenhouse gas emissions. Meanwhile, in the first six months since launching his war in Iran, Trump's nine largest oil and gas holdings gained up to $4.4 million.

Keep ReadingShow less
 U.S. President Donald Trump speaks from the Cross Hall of the White House on April 1, 2026 in Washington, DC.

U.S. President Donald Trump speaks from the Cross Hall of the White House on April 1, 2026 in Washington, DC.

Pool/Getty Images

How Presidential Primetime Addresses Shape Public Trust in Democratic Institutions

A question still being studied is the effects on public trust when the head of the Executive casts doubt on the institutions that run elections, enforce laws, and decide legal disputes. The President of the United States is arguably the most powerful man in the world. He is the commander in chief of a nation #1 in nominal gross domestic product as well as #1 in military power, budget, and spending as of 2026. The actions he takes spew ripple effects across the world and follow many generations. A way you can measure the executive's power can also be measured in how much influence his speeches have on the markets, opinions of the masses, news outlets, lawmakers, social media reactions, etc. His framing of an issue can shape the next day’s political conversation.

These conversations become extremely dangerous/consequential when discussing a principle as embedded in our country as Democracy. In his July primetime speech, Trump continued to pedal the claims about election security and argued for stricter voting rules. He continued to portray the country as facing a moment of corruption and uncertainty, followed by presenting himself as the one prepared to restore order. The address continued with repeated claims about his loss in the 2020 election that have not been supported by the evidence compiled over years of investigation by many parties. Professional reviews, audits, and courts have yet to find significant evidence of foul play substantial enough to influence the outcome of that election.

Keep ReadingShow less