Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Virginia becoming 9th state to end 'prison gerrymanders'

Virginia prison

Supporters of "prison gerrymandering" argue inmates should be counted where they are incarcerated to boost funding for local infrastructure. Above: Virginia's Keen Mountain Correctional Facility.

Virginia prisoners will be counted in their home districts when congressional and state legislative maps are redrawn for the coming decade.

The state is about to become the ninth, and the third this year, to enact laws ending the practice known as "prison gerrymandering," the term coined by critics for counting inmates as residents where they are incarcerated instead of where they used to live.

Proponents of the change say the practice unfairly shifts power to rural districts at the expense of urban areas where a majority of the prisoners are from. But, to date, all the states that have made the switch are under Democratic governance.


Virginia's legislation moved through the General Assembly in February, soon after Democrats took total control of Richmond for the first time since 1993. Gov. Ralph Northam agreed to sign the measure after a technical correction, which legislators made Wednesday.

Those representing areas where prisons are located have opposed such bills nationwide, saying their communities deserve a greater share of government services — often tied to the population totals reported by the census once a decade — because of the people housed in prisons.

Colorado and New Jersey also ended prison gerrymandering this year. Nevada and Washington did so last year. The states that have done so earlier are California, Delaware, Maryland and New York. Bills to reverse the practice died this winter in several states, however, including Connecticut and Oregon.

Some states have changed the way prisoners are apportioned only for legislative mapmaking, while others have made the switch for congressional and local line drawing.


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