Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Report: How gerrymandering has limited Medicaid coverage

Medicine across America
Moussa81/Getty Images

The debate over gerrymandering often focuses on what partisan mapmaking means for election outcomes. But that's just the means to a policy-making end. A liberal think tank has just released its second report demonstrating how gerrymandering impacts legislative decisions, this time focusing on Medicaid.

A study released Monday by the Center for American Progress details the impacts gerrymandering has had on how states determine Medicaid eligibility. CAP found that despite significant bipartisan support for Medicaid nationwide, states with Republican-controlled legislatures were more likely to limit access to the government-subsidized health insurance.

CAP is part of a growing movement advocating for a change in the way congressional and state legislative district maps have traditionally been drawn. Rather than have state lawmakers decide, redistricting reform groups say, independent commissions should have the mapmaking authority.

"A fair process for drawing districts is fundamental to democracy, helping to ensure that voters' voices are heard on critical issues such as access to health care," the report states.


Medicaid provides health insurance coverage to approximately 65 million low-income Americans, with costs jointly covered by the federal and state governments. And it is popular among Americans regardless of political party: Nearly three-quarters of Americans have a favorable view of Medicaid, including 82 percent of Democrats and 65 percent of Republicans.

But because states — many with partisan gerrymanders — have the latitude to determine eligibility, millions of Americans have been hindered from accessing Medicaid, CAP reports. And yet, even in the 14 states that have yet to expand Medicaid since the Affordable Care Act coverage provisions were changed six years ago, at least 71 percent of residents support the program, according to a poll by the Kaiser Family Foundation.

CAP analyzed how Medicaid coverage was affected by gerrymandering in four red states: Georgia, North Carolina, Wisconsin and Michigan. The first three are among the 14 that have not expanded coverage. Conservatives in those legislatures have been largely opposed to Medicaid expansion, and partisan gerrymandering has given more seats to the GOP than what would have been allotted through a fair redistricting process, CAP reports.

For instance, in North Carolina, Democrats received a narrow majority of votes cast in the 2018 election, but Republican candidates won more seats. "Had Democrats received a share of the seats commensurate with their share of the votes — that is, a majority — they almost certainly would have expanded Medicaid," CAP argues in its report.

While Michigan was the sole state in the report to expand Medicaid, the Republican-controlled Legislature also opted to impose work requirements, meaning certain employment activities would need to be verified in order to receive coverage. Wisconsin's implementation of work requirements has been delayed until April. Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp favors adding such provisions in his state as well.

"Gerrymandering in these states has allowed conservative politicians to cater to the extreme right wing and oppose policies that would save thousands of lives at minimal cost to state taxpayers," said Alex Tausanovitch, CAP's director of campaign finance and electoral reform and co-author of the report.

Gerrymandering impacts every issue of public concern, Tausanovitch said. This report is the second by CAP detailing the effects of partisan mapmaking; the first analyzed state gun control laws.

The most promising solution to combat partisan gerrymanders is state-sanctioned independent redistricting commissions. Fourteen states have already given such commissions the authority to draw state legislative districts starting in 2021. Eight of them will also use commissions to draw new congressional maps.

North Carolina's districts were redrawn last fall after a panel of judges ruled the old map violated the state Constitution's "fair elections" clause. In 2018, Michigan voters approved the implementation of a 13-member nonpartisan redistricting commission, which will be established later this year. And while support for redistricting reform is growing in Wisconsin, advocates in Georgia face more of an uphill battle.


Read More

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
Stickers with the words "I Voted Today."

Virginia is on its way to be the 19th jurisdiction to adopt the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, bringing the U.S. closer to electing presidents by the national popular vote.

Getty Images, EyeWolf

Virginia On The Path to Join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact

NPVIC is an agreement among U.S. states and the District of Columbia to award all their electoral votes to the presidential ticket that wins the overall popular vote in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. It is considered a pragmatic, voluntary state-based initiative because it aims to ensure the winner of the national popular vote wins the presidency without requiring a constitutional amendment, operating instead within the existing Electoral College framework by utilizing states' constitutional authority to appoint electors. If enough states join the NPVIC to reach a total of 270 electoral votes, the United States will effectively shift from a winner-take-all (WTA) regime to a national popular vote system for electing the President.

With Virginia's adoption, the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact will be adopted by eighteen states and the District of Columbia, collectively holding 222 electoral votes. The compact requires 270 electoral votes (a majority of the 538 total) to take effect. It currently needs forty-eight more electoral votes to become active.

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

Should the U.S. nationalize elections? A constitutional analysis of federalism, the Elections Clause, and the risks of centralized control over voting systems.

Getty Images, SDI Productions

Why Nationalizing Elections Threatens America’s Federalist Design

The Federalism Question: Why Nationalizing Elections Deserves Skepticism

The renewed push to nationalize American elections, presented as a necessary reform to ensure uniformity and fairness, deserves the same skepticism our founders directed toward concentrated federal power. The proposal, though well-intentioned, misunderstands both the constitutional architecture of our republic and the practical wisdom in decentralized governance.

The Constitutional Framework Matters

The Constitution grants states explicit authority over the "Times, Places and Manner" of holding elections, with Congress retaining only the power to "make or alter such Regulations." This was not an oversight by the framers; it was intentional design. The Tenth Amendment reinforces this principle: powers not delegated to the federal government remain with the states and the people. Advocates for nationalization often cite the Elections Clause as justification, but constitutional permission is not constitutional wisdom.

Keep ReadingShow less
Postal Service Changes Mean Texas Voters Shouldn’t Wait To Mail Voter Registrations and Ballots

A voter registration drive in Corpus Christi, Texas, on Oct. 5, 2024. The deadline to register to vote for Texas' March 3 primary election is Feb. 2, 2026. Changes to USPS policies may affect whether a voter registration application is processed on time if it's not postmarked by the deadline.

Gabriel Cárdenas for Votebeat

Postal Service Changes Mean Texas Voters Shouldn’t Wait To Mail Voter Registrations and Ballots

Texans seeking to register to vote or cast a ballot by mail may not want to wait until the last minute, thanks to new guidance from the U.S. Postal Service.

The USPS last month advised that it may not postmark a piece of mail on the same day that it takes possession of it. Postmarks are applied once mail reaches a processing facility, it said, which may not be the same day it’s dropped in a mailbox, for example.

Keep ReadingShow less