Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Settlement of civil rights suit brings ranked choice voting to a small city

Advocates of ranked-choice voting won a small victory last week when a Detroit suburb agreed to switch to that system for city council elections in order to settle a civil rights suit brought at the end of the Obama administration.

The Department of Justice alleged in January 2017 that the traditional at-large system used in Eastpointe, Mich., violated the Voting Rights Act because it resulted in black people having less opportunity than white people to elect candidates of their choice.


The Census Bureau estimates the city of 32,000 is now 46 percent black and 42 percent white, a dramatic shift from the start of the decade, when 64 percent of the residents were white and 30 percent black.

In a settlement agreement that still must be approved by a federal judge, city officials do not admit that the voting system that was used was discriminatory and the federal government acknowledges that any discrimination that has occurred was not intentional.

"This agreement reflects the department's resolute commitment to vigorous enforcement of the Voting Rights Act to protect the right to vote in all elections," said Eric Dreiband, the assistant attorney general for civil rights.

Under the new ranked-choice system, voters will rank city council candidates in their order of preference.

CORRECTION: An earlier version incorrectly said the suit was filed during the Trump administration.


Read More

A group of people wait in line to get their ballots to vote in the election.

The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact could reshape presidential elections as Midwest states debate Electoral College reform, political polarization, and the future of winner-take-all voting in America.

Getty Images, SDI Productions

700+ Proposed Amendments Failed, Midwest Voters Can Succeed

The Midwest served as the vanguard and ideological heartland of the Progressive Era, acting as a crucial laboratory for political, social, and economic reforms that later adopted national significance. Midwestern states (the cradle of the movement) pioneered anti-monopoly efforts, democratic, and social improvements.

After 770+ failed proposed U.S. Constitutional Amendments (the most on record for one issue) to remedy the factionalism (21st century polarization) feared by the Framers of the U.S. Constitution.

Keep ReadingShow less
Fueling the Future: The Debate Over California’s Gas Tax and Transportation Funding
person in red shirt wearing silver bracelet holding red and black metal tool
Photo by Wassim Chouak on Unsplash

Fueling the Future: The Debate Over California’s Gas Tax and Transportation Funding

This nonpartisan policy brief, written by an ACE fellow, is republished by The Fulcrum as part of our partnership with the Alliance for Civic Engagement and our NextGen initiative — elevating student voices, strengthening civic education, and helping readers better understand democracy and public policy.

Key Takeaways

Keep ReadingShow less
A person looking at social media app icons on a phone

Gen Z is quietly leaving social media as algorithmic feeds, infinite scroll, and addictive platform design fuel anxiety, isolation, and mental health struggles.

Matt Cardy/Getty Images

Gen Z Begs Legislators: Make Social Media Social Again

Lately, it seems like each time I reach out to an old acquaintance through social media, I’m met with a page that reads, “This account doesn’t exist anymore.”

Many Gen-Z’ers are quietly quitting the platforms we grew up on.

Keep ReadingShow less
Open Letter to Justice Roberts: Partisan Gerrymandering Is Unconstitutional
beige concrete building under blue sky during daytime

Open Letter to Justice Roberts: Partisan Gerrymandering Is Unconstitutional

The Supreme Court, in holding that partisan gerrymandering is permissible—unless it "goes too far"—stated that the argument made against this practice based on the Court's "one person, one vote" doctrine didn't work because the cases that developed that doctrine were about ensuring that each vote had an equal weight. The Court reasoned that after redistricting, each vote still has equal weight.

I would respectfully disagree. After admittedly partisan redistricting, each vote does not have an equal weight. The purpose of partisan gerrymandering is typically to create a "safe" seat—to group citizens so that the dominant political party has a clear majority of the voters. It's the transformation of a contested seat or even a seat safe for the other party into a safe seat for the party doing the redistricting.

Keep ReadingShow less