Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

In Illinois, coronavirus kills year's last plausible redistricting reform vote

Illinois Capitol

Due to the coronavirus, Illinois lawmakers won't reconvene in time to consider redistricting reform legislation.

benkrut/Getty Images

Opponents of partisan gerrymandering have been fighting uphill for years to make Illinois one of the biggest blue states to take mapmaking authority away from politicians. Now the coronavirus has doomed the latest such effort.

The General Assembly has been in recess since last month because of the pandemic and now says it won't reconvene before Tuesday — two days after the deadline for completing legislation in time to permit voters to decide in November whether to create an independent redistricting commission.

This year is the last chance to reassign line-drawing power before another decade passes. That's because, after the census details come in, congressional and legislative maps for the remainder of the 2020s are supposed to be completed in time for the next election.


Virginia is for now the only state with a redistricting commission proposal on the ballot. Approval, which seems likely, would mean at least some maps in 14 states are next drawn by panels where neither party has the ability to perpetuate its hold on power.

The cause of getting such a referendum on the Illinois ballot was a longshot, given resistance by the Democrats in charge in Springfield. But in light of the Covid-19 outbreak it emerged as potentially the only other possible place for a statewide vote in time.

The reason is the measure's fate was in the hands of legislators who might have been swayed at the last minute. But petition drives would need to succeed in the five other states where signatures were being gathered: Arkansas, Nebraska, Nevada, Oklahoma and Oregon. And signature gathering has been stopped cold by a pandemic that is keeping the vast majority of Americans at home.

In Illinois, good-government groups have been pushing independent commission plans throughout the decade. A proposal for a statewide vote got close in 2016 but was blocked by the state Supreme Court on the grounds the proposed language did not meet strict legal requirements.

Proponents thought their chances would improve significantly once Democrat J.B. Pritzker became governor last year, because as a candidate he expressed support for removing legislators from the mapmaking process. But he has not put his weight behind that idea since taking office, instead vowing only to veto maps drawn by the General Assembly next year if he concludes they are overly partisan.

Putting a state constitutional amendment before the voters would require his signature along with three-fifths majorities in both the state House and state Senate. And with Democratic supermajorities in both, the party had little incentive to give up its ability to draw lines that would perpetuate its power.

As evidence of how successful the party's cartographic skills last time have worked out, Democrats took about 60 percent of the statewide vote for both the General Assembly and Congress in 2018 — but their candidates won twice as many legislative races as Republicans along with 13 of the 18 House seats.

A February poll found 82 percent of Democrats and 68 percent of Republicans in the state support an independent redistricting commission, with more than three-quarters of voters in Chicago, its suburbs and the rest of northern Illinois backing the idea along with a somewhat less lopsided majority downstate.

Known by supporters as the Fair Maps Amendment, the current proposal would create a 17-person panel — seven Democrats, seven Republicans and three politically unaffiliated members — appointed by the state's chief justice and the most senior Supreme Court justice of the other party. Any maps would have to win support from 11 commissioners.

As an alternative, good government groups are pondering the idea of pushing legislators to pass legislation that would create a similar commission but put final approval of its work in the hands of the General Assembly.

Read More

An oversized ballot box surrounded by people.

Young people worldwide form new parties to reshape politics—yet America’s two-party system blocks them.

Getty Images, J Studios

No Country for Young Politicians—and How To Fix That

In democracies around the world, young people have started new political parties whenever the establishment has sidelined their views or excluded them from policymaking. These parties have sometimes reinvigorated political competition, compelled established parties to take previously neglected issues seriously, or encouraged incumbent leaders to find better ways to include and reach out to young voters.

In Europe, a trio in their twenties started Volt in 2017 as a pan-European response to Brexit, and the party has managed to win seats in the European Parliament and in some national legislatures. In Germany, young people concerned about climate change created Klimaliste, a party committed to limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, as per the Paris Agreement. Although the party hasn’t won seats at the federal level, they have managed to win some municipal elections. In Chile, leaders of the 2011 student protests, who then won seats as independent candidates, created political parties like Revolución Democrática and Convergencia Social to institutionalize their movements. In 2022, one of these former student leaders, Gabriel Boric, became the president of Chile at 36 years old.

Keep ReadingShow less
How To Fix Gerrymandering: A Fair-Share Rule for Congressional Redistricting

Demonstrators gather outside of The United States Supreme Court during an oral arguments in Gill v. Whitford to call for an end to partisan gerrymandering on October 3, 2017 in Washington, DC

Getty Images, Olivier Douliery

How To Fix Gerrymandering: A Fair-Share Rule for Congressional Redistricting

The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield, and government to gain ground. ~ Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Col. Edward Carrington, Paris, 27 May 1788

The Problem We Face

The U.S. House of Representatives was designed as the chamber of Congress most directly tethered to the people. Article I of the Constitution mandates that seats be apportioned among the states according to population and that members face election every two years—design features meant to keep representatives responsive to shifting public sentiment. Unlike the Senate, which prioritizes state sovereignty and representation, the House translates raw population counts into political voice: each House district is to contain roughly the same number of residents, ensuring that every citizen’s vote carries comparable weight. In principle, then, the House serves as the nation’s demographic mirror, channeling the diverse preferences of the electorate into lawmaking and acting as a safeguard against unresponsive or oligarchic governance.

Nationally, the mismatch between the overall popular vote and the partisan split in House seats is small, with less than a 1% tilt. But state-level results tell a different story. Take Connecticut: Democrats hold all five seats despite Republicans winning over 40% of the statewide vote. In Oklahoma, the inverse occurs—Republicans control every seat even though Democrats consistently earn around 40% of the vote.

Keep ReadingShow less
Once Again, Politicians Are Choosing Their Voters. It’s Time for Voters To Choose Back.
A pile of political buttons sitting on top of a table

Once Again, Politicians Are Choosing Their Voters. It’s Time for Voters To Choose Back.

Once again, politicians are trying to choose their voters to guarantee their own victories before the first ballot is cast.

In the latest round of redistricting wars, Texas Republicans are attempting a rare mid-decade redistricting to boost their advantage ahead of the 2026 midterms, and Democratic governors in California and New York are signaling they’re ready to “fight fire with fire” with their own partisan gerrymanders.

Keep ReadingShow less
Stolen Land, Stolen Votes: Native Americans Defending the VRA Protects Us All – and We Should Support Them

Wilson Deschine sits at the "be my voice" voter registration stand at the Navajo Nation annual rodeo, in Window Rock.

Getty Images, David Howells

Stolen Land, Stolen Votes: Native Americans Defending the VRA Protects Us All – and We Should Support Them

On July 24, the Supreme Court temporarily blocked a Circuit Court order in a far-reaching case that could affect the voting rights of all Americans. Native American tribes and individuals filed the case as part of their centuries-old fight for rights in their own land.

The underlying subject of the case confronts racial gerrymandering against America’s first inhabitants, where North Dakota’s 2021 redistricting reduced Native Americans’ chances of electing up to three state representatives to just one. The specific issue that the Supreme Court may consider, if it accepts hearing the case, is whether individuals and associations can seek justice under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA). That is because the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, contradicting other courts, said that individuals do not have standing to bring Section 2 cases.

Keep ReadingShow less