Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Conservative Media Blasts ‘Skullduggery’ in NC Redistricting Battles

North Carolina continues to hold pride of place as Ground Zero in the national debate over partisan gerrymandering. And a conservative news site based in Charlotte is out with a provocative assessment of the latest developments in state and federal courts, where fresh but separate battles are churning along over both the congressional map and state legislative boundaries.

"The Left's latest skullduggery could have a devastating impact on public confidence in an electoral system already fraught with partisan bickering and scandal, according to state GOP leaders," Liberty Headlines reports. And if Democratic judges "manipulate the State Constitution to expand their party's power in the legislative branch, we are looking at a full-blown constitutional crisis," it quoted state Sen. Ralph Hise, chairman of his chamber's Redistricting and Elections Committee, as asserting. "That's the end of the rule of law."


Common Cause is the lead plaintiff in a suit seeking to compel another redrawing of state House and state Senate maps, after an earlier lawsuit by the advocacy group resulted in maps that helped Democrats score significant, but not takeover, gains in Raleigh in the midterm election. The group got a boost when voters elected a new state Supreme Court justice, Anita Earls, who was once a litigator arguing for a redistricting overhaul in the state.

Common Cause is also lead plaintiff in another case, to be argued before the Supreme Court in coming months, arguing that North Carolina's map of 13 House districts is an unconstitutionally partisan gerrymander. (With one race still in limbo because of suspected election fraud, the delegation has just three Democrats again this year even though the party garnered 48 percent of the statewide vote in House races last fall.)

"Even assuming liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is healthy and present for the decision, the swapping of chronic swing-voter Anthony Kennedy for the (presumably) more conservative Brett Kavanaugh likely shifts the high court to the right," Liberty Headlines concludes. "Kennedy had sided with the court's liberal wing in previous redistricting cases.


Read More

An empty grocery cart in a market.

NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani proposes five city-run grocery stores. See the arguments for and against, from food deserts to bodega concerns and the $70M cost.

Getty Images, Kwangmoozaa

Government-Owned Grocery Stores: Accessible Nutrition or Government Overreach?

Issue Introduction

Over the past few years, affordability has become the most central issue affecting Americans and the quality of life in the United States. The prices of groceries and basic necessities have risen 25-30% since the COVID-19 pandemic and are projected to rise another 3.2% in 2026. At the same time, the exodus of grocery chains from rural and low-income areas has scattered food deserts throughout individual states. Recent mass closures include Grocery Outlet’s shuttering of 36 stores and continued shut-downs of many Albertsons locations. These factors have led politicians to make affordability a major campaign issue.

During his progressive campaign for mayor of New York City, Zohran Mamdani raised the idea of opening grocery stores owned and operated by the city government to provide New Yorkers with affordable groceries. In his April 2026 public address that marked his first 100 days in office, Mayor Mamdani announced plans for the first of five city-run grocery stores. Mamdani’s proposed initiative will use $70 million in capital funding to build five city-owned municipal stores–one in each borough–and place them under control of the New York City Economic Development Corporation (NYCEDC). NYCEDC will then select third-party operating staff in accordance with city standards for affordability and proper labor practices. Public opinion following the announcement continues to be divided between uproar and support.

Keep ReadingShow less
Land of the Free, Home of the Capitalism Didn’t Fail America. America Failed to Moderate Capitalism
Monopoly's mr. monopoly in a graffiti collage
Photo by Artur Ament on Unsplash

Land of the Free, Home of the Capitalism Didn’t Fail America. America Failed to Moderate Capitalism

The signs are everywhere. For many Americans, buying power has improved only modestly despite decades of economic growth. Corporate profits are at an all-time high. We have reached a level of wealth inequality last seen almost a hundred years ago. By many measures, our capitalist economy seems to have failed to deliver broadly shared prosperity.

However, the failure isn’t with the free market as an economic approach. Instead, it’s our failure to regulate and moderate the free market, or more accurately, that we have spent 40 years undermining or removing the regulations of the New Deal that made our economy work for more Americans.

Keep ReadingShow less
Woman putting savings in a white piggy bank.

America’s economy now rewards asset ownership over wages. A policy proposal: a $35,000 Birthright Account for every child, and how it could be funded.

Guido Mieth/Getty Images

The American Dream Needs a New Economic Operating System

It is, by now, not an exaggeration to state that the traditional American Dream—work hard, buy a house, raise a family, and retire securely—is failing. It was built for a labor-based economy in which steadily rising wages allowed ordinary families to accumulate wealth. But America has become an asset-based economy, and ownership of those assets is extraordinarily concentrated.

Since the 1980s, the returns from capital have far outpaced the returns from labor. Inflation-adjusted wages for ordinary workers have risen only modestly, while the real value of equities has multiplied many times over. Housing, education, healthcare and childcare costs have soared, employment has become less secure, and defined-benefit pensions have largely disappeared. Even two-income households with respectable jobs often struggle to buy a home, build savings and accumulate enough for retirement.

Keep ReadingShow less