Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Redistricting reformers see strong ties between racial and partisan gerrymandering

Gerrymandering in Ohio

Protestors call for fair maps in Ohio during a day of anti-gerrymandering activity in September 2021.

Anti-gerrymandering forces hope ongoing litigation will limit the impact of partisan and racial bias in state and congressional redistricting this cycle.

Common Cause, a national organization focused on democracy reform, is partnering with groups in multiple states to fight new district maps that they identify as racial or partisan gerrymanders, often arguing that the two go hand-in-hand.

While more than 60 lawsuits have been filed in at least 22 states by various groups, Common Cause is particularly focused on litigation in North Carolina, Ohio and Pennsylvania as well as unusual redistricting activity in Florida.


Communities of color have been able to make their voices heard more this cycle than in the past, said Suzanne Almeida, redistricting and representation counsel for Common Cause.

“This year it’s been more coordinated, more concentrated and more focused, and because of that we’re seeing some wins we might not otherwise have seen,” she said. “Unfortunately, we’re also seeing a national trend where the redistricting cycle is weakening these voices.”

Almeida argued that legislators are making partisan decisions at the expense of community voices: “We are seeing state after state intentionally draw maps that silence communities of color at the ballot box.”

One of the places Common Cause and its legal allies have had success is North Carolina, which has a history of gerrymandering battles.

“We have been the epicenter of bad maps, arguably,” said Bob Phillips, executive director of Common Cause North Carolina. But he believes it’s possible the state has turned a corner.

The North Carolina Supreme Court ruled that the legislative and congressional maps approved by the General Assembly violate the state Constitution’s prohibition on partisan gerrymandering. Even though the state has been narrowly divided in recent national elections, the proposed maps would deliver heavy Republican majorities in the General Assembly and the congressional delegation, likely eliminating districts where candidates of color would be expected to win.

Any new maps must include statistics to justify their nonpartisanship.

“In North Carolina, we filed litigation to make clear it is never admissible to build political power on the backs of communities of color—and the State Supreme Court agreed,” said Phillips. “The ruling is one more nail in the coffin of gerrymandering in North Carolina and a powerful reminder of what’s possible when you combine litigation with grassroots advocacy.”

The courts in Ohio have similarly sided with anti-gerrymandering forces.

On Monday, state Supreme Court rejected proposed legislative maps for the second time in 2022 for violating the Ohio Constitution, which voters amended to limit partisan gerrymandering. The court also rejected the congressional map in January.

The people in charge of redistricting ignored the new requirements around transparency, public participation, bipartisanship and representational fairness, according to Common Cause Ohio Associate Director Mia Lewis, who claimed “these rigged maps are made on the backs of people of color.”

“This showed an epic disrespect for the voters of Ohio and the Ohio Constitution,” she said. “It was really galling to see this process go so wrong.”

And in Pennsylvania, where the state is led by a Republican General Assembly and a Democratic governor, the local chapter has engaged in the redistricting process by submitting a map of its own.

“Common Cause Pennsylvania is participating in this case as an amicus to ensure that voters of color that have historically been left out or worse by the redistricting process can have their voices heard,” said Khalif Ali, executive director of the chapter. “We are continuing to seek a better way of drawing maps that put people, not politicians, in the drawing seat.”

The battle in Florida is different. Rather than suing over approved maps, Common Cause Florida and other groups are trying to prevent Gov. Ron DeSantis, a Republican, from getting involved in the redistricting process prior to the Legislature sending him its proposal.

Opponents believe DeSantis’ proposed congressional map would reduce the influence of Black voters while increasing the number of seats held by Republicans.

“It is not normal for any court, especially a supreme court, to give an advisory opinion to someone who doesn’t even have the authority to draw maps,” said Allison Riggs, co-executive director and chief counsel of the Southern Coalition for Social Justice.

In all of these cases, the anti-gerrymandering advocates believe partisan gerrymandering and racial gerrymandering are being practiced simultaneously.

“Racial discrimination and partisan gerrymandering are tools that work together,” said Riggs.

Read More

When Good Intentions Kill Cures: A Warning on AI Regulation

Kevin Frazier warns that one-size-fits-all AI laws risk stifling innovation. Learn the 7 “sins” policymakers must avoid to protect progress.

Getty Images, Aitor Diago

When Good Intentions Kill Cures: A Warning on AI Regulation

Imagine it is 2028. A start-up in St. Louis trains an AI model that can spot pancreatic cancer six months earlier than the best radiologists, buying patients precious time that medicine has never been able to give them. But the model never leaves the lab. Why? Because a well-intentioned, technology-neutral state statute drafted in 2025 forces every “automated decision system” to undergo a one-size-fits-all bias audit, to be repeated annually, and to be performed only by outside experts who—three years in—still do not exist in sufficient numbers. While regulators scramble, the company’s venture funding dries up, the founders decamp to Singapore, and thousands of Americans are deprived of an innovation that would have saved their lives.

That grim vignette is fictional—so far. But it is the predictable destination of the seven “deadly sins” that already haunt our AI policy debates. Reactive politicians are at risk of passing laws that fly in the face of what qualifies as good policy for emerging technologies.

Keep ReadingShow less
President Donald Trump standing next to a chart in the Oval Office.

U.S. President Donald Trump discusses economic data with Stephen Moore (L), Senior Visiting Fellow in Economics at The Heritage Foundation, in the Oval Office on August 07, 2025 in Washington, DC.

Getty Images, Win McNamee

Investor-in-Chief: Trump’s Business Deals, Loyalty Scorecards, and the Rise of Neo-Socialist Capitalism

For over 100 years, the Republican Party has stood for free-market capitalism and keeping the government’s heavy hand out of the economy. Government intervention in the economy, well, that’s what leaders did in the Soviet Union and communist China, not in the land of Uncle Sam.

And then Donald Trump seized the reins of the Republican Party. Trump has dispensed with numerous federal customs and rules, so it’s not too surprising that he is now turning his administration into the most business-interventionist government ever in American history. Contrary to Adam Smith’s “invisible hand” in the economy, suddenly, the signs of the White House’s “visible hand” are everywhere.

Keep ReadingShow less
Cuando El Idioma Se Convierte En Blanco, La Democracia Pierde Su Voz

Hands holding bars over "Se Habla Español" sign

AI generated

Cuando El Idioma Se Convierte En Blanco, La Democracia Pierde Su Voz

On Monday, the Supreme Court issued a 6–3 decision from its “shadow docket” that reversed a lower-court injunction and gave federal immigration agents in Los Angeles the green light to resume stops based on four deeply troubling criteria:

  • Apparent race or ethnicity
  • Speaking Spanish or accented English
  • Presence in a particular location
  • Type of work

The case, Noem v. Vasquez Perdomo, is still working its way through the courts. But the message from this emergency ruling is unmistakable: the constitutional protections that once shielded immigrant communities from racial profiling are now conditional—and increasingly fragile.

Keep ReadingShow less