Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Partisan gerrymandering's first win of the year goes to N.Y. Democrats

New York's Capitol in Albany

If approved, a ballot measure would allow Democrats in the New York legislature to ram through a partisan redistricting plan.

demerzel21/Getty Images

Voters across New York will decide this fall whether to take some of the few teeth out of a new system designed to make redistricting of the nation's fourth largest state a bit less partisan.

The ballot measure was quietly given final approval last week by a Democratic-controlled Legislature voting almost entirely along party lines, the first victory this year by politicians out to make the most of their mapmaking powers.

The vote reminds democracy reformers they made only marginal gains in their bid to curtail partisan gerrymandering in time for the redrawing of all the nation's electoral boundaries for this decade.


Assuming approval in November's low-turnout, off-year election, the measure will allow the Democrats in Albany to unilaterally accept or reject the handiwork of an independent but only advisory redistricting commission that next January is supposed to draw maps for the first time. When creating the commission seven years ago, the divided state government established rules to give either party a reasonable shot at legislative veto power over the lines.

Abandoning that feature will assure New York remains the biggest state where the Democrats can leverage their partisan advantage. That's because California is one of only eight states that will rely on truly independent commissions to make the maps, while in Texas and Florida the process is under Republican control — the situation, for a second straight decade, in a solid plurality of states.

New York Democrats are keen not only to preserve their control of the Legislature but also to keep dominating the congressional delegation. They hold 19 of the 27 House seats now but at least one and maybe two districts will soon have to disappear, depending on the reapportionment that follows the census, which will be finalized in the coming weeks.

The current map was decreed in 2012 by a panel of federal judges after the Legislature deadlocked. In a bid to prevent that from happening again, the lawmakers put a referendum on the ballot two years later creating a panel of 10, with two seats reserved for political independents, that will take the first shot at setting legislative and congressional boundaries.

The measure, approved with 57 percent support, said that if the Legislature is under one party's control then a two-thirds supermajority would be needed to approve the maps — essentially assuring the lines would require some GOP buy-in. The new referendum would reduce that threshold to a simple majority, putting the Democrats in total control at least in 2022.

If they decided to reject both the first and second proposals from the commission, they would effectively claim all the cartographic power for themselves.


Read More

Nicolas Maduro’s Capture: Sovereignty Only Matters When It’s Convenient

US Capitol and South America. Nicolas Maduro’s capture is not the end of an era. It marks the opening act of a turbulent transition

AI generated

Nicolas Maduro’s Capture: Sovereignty Only Matters When It’s Convenient

The U.S. capture of Nicolás Maduro will be remembered as one of the most dramatic American interventions in Latin America in a generation. But the real story isn’t the raid itself. It’s what the raid reveals about the political imagination of the hemisphere—how quickly governments abandon the language of sovereignty when it becomes inconvenient, and how easily Washington slips back into the posture of regional enforcer.

The operation was months in the making, driven by a mix of narcotrafficking allegations, geopolitical anxiety, and the belief that Maduro’s security perimeter had finally cracked. The Justice Department’s $50 million bounty—an extraordinary price tag for a sitting head of state—signaled that the U.S. no longer viewed Maduro as a political problem to be negotiated with, but as a criminal target to be hunted.

Keep ReadingShow less
Red elephants and blue donkeys

The ACA subsidy deadline reveals how Republican paralysis and loyalty-driven leadership are hollowing out Congress’s ability to govern.

Carol Yepes

Governing by Breakdown: The Cost of Congressional Paralysis

Picture a bridge with a clearly posted warning: without a routine maintenance fix, it will close. Engineers agree on the repair, but the construction crew in charge refuses to act. The problem is not that the fix is controversial or complex, but that making the repair might be seen as endorsing the bridge itself.

So, traffic keeps moving, the deadline approaches, and those responsible promise to revisit the issue “next year,” even as the risk of failure grows. The danger is that the bridge fails anyway, leaving everyone who depends on it to bear the cost of inaction.

Keep ReadingShow less
White House
A third party candidate has never won the White House, but there are two ways to examine the current political situation, writes Anderson.
DEA/M. BORCHI/Getty Images

250 Years of Presidential Scandals: From Harding’s Oil Bribes to Trump’s Criminal Conviction

During the 250 years of America’s existence, whenever a scandal involving the U.S. President occurred, the public was shocked and dismayed. When presidential scandals erupt, faith and trust in America – by its citizens as well as allies throughout the world – is lost and takes decades to redeem.

Below are several of the more prominent presidential scandals, followed by a suggestion as to how "We the People" can make America truly America again like our founding fathers so eloquently established in the constitution.

Keep ReadingShow less
Money and the American flag
Half of Americans want participatory budgeting at the local level. What's standing in the way?
SimpleImages/Getty Images

For the People, By the People — Or By the Wealthy?

When did America replace “for the people, by the people” with “for the wealthy, by the wealthy”? Wealthy donors are increasingly shaping our policies, institutions, and even the balance of power, while the American people are left as spectators, watching democracy erode before their eyes. The question is not why billionaires need wealth — they already have it. The question is why they insist on owning and controlling government — and the people.

Back in 1968, my Government teacher never spoke of powerful think tanks like the Heritage Foundation, now funded by billionaires determined to avoid paying their fair share of taxes. Yet here in 2025, these forces openly work to control the Presidency, Congress, and the Supreme Court through Project 2025. The corruption is visible everywhere. Quid pro quo and pay for play are not abstractions — they are evident in the gifts showered on Supreme Court justices.

Keep ReadingShow less