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

The Word ‘Black’ Has Disappeared From a Set of Bills Aimed at Addressing Black Maternal Health

The Momnibus Act was previously known as the Black Maternal Health Momnibus Act, but the word 'Black' has been removed from the title and appears only once across the latest package.

Emily Scherer for The 19th

The Word ‘Black’ Has Disappeared From a Set of Bills Aimed at Addressing Black Maternal Health

The word “Black” has been almost completely removed from a package of bills that have long been viewed as Congress’ main legislative vehicle to address the Black maternal health crisis, frustrating some advocates who feel Black women are being erased from the policy.

The key change this year is the title. The Momnibus Act — filed in mid-March — was called the Black Maternal Health Momnibus Act in 2023; before that it was the Black Maternal Health Momnibus Act of 2021 and the Black Maternal Health Momnibus Act of 2020. None of the previous packages, which were championed by Democrats, have been enacted.

Keep ReadingShow less
Trump Never Intended To Be Just

U.S. President Donald Trump on May 22, 2026 in Suffern, New York.

(Photo by Roberto Schmidt/Getty Images)

Trump Never Intended To Be Just

Let us set aside, for a moment, the fact that in suing the IRS, Donald Trump initiated a lawsuit that was meritless, frivolous, and a blatant conflict of interest…in his own words, “I am supposed to work out a settlement with myself.” Let us further acknowledge, but look past the fact, that the settlement is filled with “illegal cookies” like his effort to exempt himself and his family members or family-controlled companies, from past or future IRS audits or any future obligations to ever pay federal taxes.

Please appreciate, but set aside for a moment, that this is the most corrupt administration in modern US history. Further, I would like to ignore the fact that this appears to be an effort to finance a private militia that has violently sought to undermine the US Government and the electoral capacity of the vote of the people of the United States of America.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Fragile Promise of the Ballot
black and white love print crew neck shirt
Photo by Cyrus Crossan on Unsplash

The Fragile Promise of the Ballot

Recent Supreme Court decisions such as Shelby County v. Holder and Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee were not just redefinitions of election law; they marked a critical shift away from the federal government’s duty to ensure equal ballot access—a duty fundamental to democracy.

The consequences were swift and broad. Within hours, Shelby County, Texas, imposed strict voter ID rules that federal officials had previously blocked under the Voting Rights Act’s pre-clearance provisions. Soon after, North Carolina reduced early voting and eliminated same-day registration. Across parts of Alabama, Georgia, and other Southern states, polling places closed or moved, often in communities with large Black populations. What once required federal review could now proceed quickly.

Keep ReadingShow less