Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

State court races eyed by Democratic group central to gerrymandering fight

Barack Obama and Eric Holder

Barack Obama and Eric Holder are the faces of the National Democratic Redistricting Committee, which is waging a mostly partisan fight against partisan gerrymandering.

Win McNamee/Getty Images

The campaign operation backed by Barack Obama and Eric Holder is expanding its sights.

The National Democratic Redistricting Committee was created by the former president and his attorney general to elect more Democratic legislators who could help the party in the coming nationwide remapping of congressional districts. Now it's growing its ambitions to include some judicial elections.

The first target is a pair of Supreme Court contests in Ohio. That's because winning both this fall would tip the partisan balance of the court, and those justices are likely to end up deciding the lines for the 15 House districts that the seventh largest state is likely to have in the coming decade, one fewer than today.


The organization has been a prominent critic of partisan gerrymandering, but its efforts to combat the practice have occurred almost exclusively in states run by Republicans.

That has opened Obama and Holder to criticism that their effort — which they portray as a crusade against one of the biggest obstacles to a more representative and better functioning democracy — is motivated entirely by something different: a desire to get more fellow Democrats in position for the 2020s to maximize their power through mapmaking, the same way the GOP did so effectively in the 2010s.

Ohio is among the dozen states the NDRC is targeting and, like eight others, the state government is now under the control of the GOP. Democrats seizing control of the General Assembly this fall is highly unlikely. But under changes approved by the voters in 2018, the minority party will have more influence over redistricting, especially if their caucuses get a bit bigger, which could result in a deadlock a year from now that kicks the process to the state's high court.

That's why the NDRC may invest in both races for the bench this fall, spokesman Patrick Rodenbush told the Cleveland Plain Dealer.

"Because it was so gerrymandered after 2011, we want to try as much as possible to make that map more fair for the next 10 years," he said.

The partisan gerrymander of Ohio a decade ago has worked just as well as the GOP could have hoped. The party has held 12 of the states 16 seats all decade, even in the 2018 midterm, when Republican candidates took just 52 percent of the congressional vote statewide.

Since its 2017 founding, the NDRC and its affiliates have raised $52 million, much of it from liberal millionaires and labor groups who were generous donors to Obama's campaigns.

The other states on its target list are:

  • Texas, Florida and North Carolina, all states that are going to gain House seats after the census and where the GOP is currently in control.
  • Michigan and Pennsylvania, which like Ohio have GOP state governments and expect to lose one seat each.
  • Minnesota, which has the only politically divided legislature in the country and will lose a seat.
  • Kentucky, Georgia and Louisiana, which have Republican legislatures and are expecting to keep the same number of seats.
  • Virginia and New Hampshire, where the state capitals have just recently titled Democratic and the congressional delegation sizes won't change.

Read More

Poll: Voters Want Solutions for Government Corruption
Greggory DiSalvo/Getty

Poll: Voters Want Solutions for Government Corruption

A new Brennan Center survey finds that large majorities of Republicans, Democrats, and independents share deep-seated concerns about government corruption, which most voters define broadly and blame for many of the country’s biggest problems going unaddressed. The survey, fielded to 2,000 registered voters across the country between April 28 and May 6, also finds widespread support for key anticorruption reforms, such as new limits on money in elections and stronger protections against self-dealing by high-ranking government officials.

The key findings include:

Keep ReadingShow less
Shadow on a wall of Judge hitting gavel in court, concept of justice, law, and legal protection

The Rule of Law depends on action, not blind optimism. Explore how critical hope, civic engagement, and accountability can strengthen democracy.

Aitor Diago / Getty Images

Only Collective Action Can Turn Outrage Into Accountability and Protect the Rule of Law

The past year has shaken our faith in institutions and, perhaps, in each other. If not already eviscerated, the Rule of Law is under attack. In this atmosphere of constant chaos, we have become numbed by the events of each day and the scope of unprecedented executive action. Yet, even in the face of growing autocracy and oligarchy, the Rule of Law can prevail.

“There is a crack, a crack in everything. That’s how the light gets in.” In the current moment, it is tempting to reach for hope as comfort, or to repeat familiar lines about resilience, unity, or the promise of American ideals—such as this one from Leonard Cohen. But as educator Jeffrey Duncan-Andrade warns, not all hope is created equal. The kind of hope that ignores suffering, that insists the Rule of Law will revive itself without action, is not hope at all. It is what he calls “hokey or “mythical hope,” a passive optimism that ultimately deepens despair. What this moment demands instead is “critical hope”: a form of hope grounded in struggle and action.

Keep ReadingShow less
stethoscope and us dollar bills on blue-colored background.

Millions of Americans face rising healthcare costs and coverage gaps. Learn how strengthening the Affordable Care Act can improve affordability and access.

Getty Images, aaaaimages

When Health Care Becomes a Choice, Something Is Broken

Recently, a nurse told me she had to choose between paying for her husband’s surgery and putting a new roof on their home. “We’re praying for no rain,” she said. In that moment, the distance between political promises and real life collapsed. This is what the economy feels like for millions of Americans — not a graph, not a headline, but a quiet calculation of which basic need they can afford to meet. No family in a nation as wealthy as ours should have to rely on the weather to survive.

For years, Americans were promised that the Affordable Care Act (ACA) would be replaced with something better, cheaper, and available to everyone. That promise never became policy. Congress never passed a comprehensive replacement. The closest attempt, the American Health Care Act (AHCA), collapsed under the weight of its own numbers. The Congressional Budget Office found that it would have left 23 million more Americans uninsured, caused 14 million to lose coverage in the first year alone, cut Medicaid by $834 billion, and raised premiums for older adults to levels many could never pay. A 64‑year‑old making $26,500 a year would have seen premiums jump from $1,700 under the ACA to more than $14,000. Protections for people with pre‑existing conditions would have weakened. That is not “better.” That is not “cheaper.” And it certainly was not “for everyone.”

Keep ReadingShow less