Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Anti-gerrymandering campaign in Oklahoma hits new roadblocks

Oklahoma map
dk_photos/Getty Images

A campaign to end partisan gerrymandering by the Republicans who run Oklahoma is facing more legal challenges in its efforts to bring nonpartisan mapmaking to the Sooner State.

In October, a coalition of redistricting reformers filed a petition with the secretary of state seeking permission to get signatures on petitions proposing a November ballot measure to create an independent commission that would undertake the next round of legislative and congressional redistricting after this year's census.

The application was quickly challenged in court by those seeking to keep the power in the hands of Oklahoma's entrenched, Republian-controlled Legislature.

They won a partial victory last month when the state Supreme Court ordered People Not Politicians, which is pushing for the commission, to rewrite its proposed language for the ballot summarizing the legalese of the referendum. The court ruled the wording lacked sufficient detail.


The justices, however, rejected more serious claims that opponents presented in the hopes of thwarting the petition, such as the claim that it amounted to a First Amendment violation.

People Not Politicians, which is headed by the League of Women Voters of Oklahoma and Let's Fix This, refiled revised language just days later.

On Friday, however, their opponents filed new legal challenges, again attacking the accuracy of the proposed language for the ballot as well as new claims about the constitutionality of the measure, such as barring people with political ties from the proposed commission.

Andy Moore, executive director of People Not Politicians, said he was "disappointed but not surprised" by the challenges brought by four plantiffs, who he said included a politician's wife, a lobbyist's daughter, a major GOP donor and a former head of the Oklahoma Farm Bureau. In other words, not your average citizens, but politically connected individuals with a stake in keeping certain politicians or political parties in control over mapmaking.

Moore said he is hoping the court moves quickly to allow the group time to begin collecting the 178,000 signatures needed to place the constitutional amendment on the ballot Nov. 3, in time for the potential commission to get to work on drawing the new lines to be used in 2022. The deadline for getting on the ballot is Aug. 19.


Read More

People at voting booths.

A clear breakdown of voter ID laws under the Constitution, federal statutes, and court rulings—plus analysis of new Trump administration proposals to impose nationwide voter identification requirements.

Getty Images, LPETTET

Just the Facts: Voter ID, States’ Powers, and Federal Limits

The Fulcrum approaches news stories with an open mind and skepticism, presenting our readers with a broad spectrum of viewpoints through diligent research and critical thinking. As best we can, remove personal bias from our reporting and seek a variety of perspectives in both our news gathering and selection of opinion pieces. However, before our readers can analyze varying viewpoints, they must have the facts.


Few issues generate more heat and are less understood than voter ID.

Keep ReadingShow less
A person signing a piece of paper with other people around them.

Javon Jackson, center, was able to register to vote following passage of a 2019 Nevada law that restored voting rights to formerly incarcerated individuals.

The Nation Is Missing Millions of Voters Due to Lack of Rights for Former Felons

If you gathered every American with a prison record into one contiguous territory and admitted it to the union, you would create the 12th-largest state. It would be home to at least 7 million to 8 million people and hold a dozen votes in the Electoral College.

In a close presidential race, this hypothetical state of the formerly incarcerated could decide who wins the White House.

Keep ReadingShow less
With the focus on the voting posters, the people in the background of the photo sign up to vote.

An analysis of Trump’s SAVE Act strategy, the voter ID debate, and how Pew data is being misused—exploring election integrity, voter suppression, and the political fight shaping U.S. democracy.

Getty Images, SDI Productions

Stop Fighting Voter ID. Start Defining It.

President Trump doesn't need the SAVE America Act to pass. He only needs the debate to continue. Every minute spent arguing about voter suppression repeats the underlying premise — that noncitizen voting is a real and widespread problem — until it feels like an established fact. The question is whether Democrats will contest Republicans’ definition before the frame hardens.

Trump's claim that 88% of Americans support the bill traces to a Pew Research Center survey — a survey that found 83% support a “government-issued photo ID to vote,” not extreme vetting for proof of citizenship. That support included 95% of Republicans and 71% of Democrats, indicating genuine, broad, bipartisan support for a basic civic principle. That's worth taking seriously.

Keep ReadingShow less
People standing at voting booths.

The proposed SAVE Act and MEGA Act would require proof of citizenship to register to vote, risking the disenfranchisement of millions of eligible Americans.

Getty Images, EvgeniyShkolenko

The SAVE Act is a Solution in Search of A Problem

The federal government seems to be barreling toward a federal election power grab. Trump's State of the Union address called for the Senate to push through the SAVE Act, which has already passed the House, in the name of so-called "election integrity." And the SAVE Act isn’t the only such bill. Like the SAVE Act, the Make Elections Great Again (MEGA) Act—introduced in the House—would require voters to provide a document outlined in the Act that allegedly proves their U.S. citizenship. We’ve been down this road before in Texas, and spoiler alert: it was unworkable.

Both the SAVE and MEGA Acts would disenfranchise millions of eligible U.S. citizens without making our federal elections more secure. They seek to roll out a faulty federal voter registration system, despite the existing separate registration and voting process for state and local elections. And these Acts target a minuscule “problem”—but would unleash mass voter purges and confusion.

Keep ReadingShow less