Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

North Dakota court boots wide-ranging reform measure from ballot

North Dakota map
FotografiaBasica/Getty Images

A sweeping election reform measure has been removed from the November ballot following a North Dakota Supreme Court ruling Tuesday.

The measure would have established an independent redistricting commission as well as other changes to the election process, if approved by voters. But the high court agreed with a lawsuit that claimed voters had been misled during the signature gathering process.

This year's general election is the last opportunity for some states to approve redistricting reforms before election maps are redrawn next year. The court's decision means North Dakota's legislative districts will remain subject to partisan gerrymandering for another decade. (The state's sole seat in the U.S. House isn't subject to remapping.)


Soon after North Dakota Voters First's reform initiative was approved for the ballot earlier this month, the conservative Brighter Future Alliance sued GOP Secretary of State Al Jaeger to remove it. The suit claimed petition canvassers failed to provide a full text of the measure when collecting signatures. Nearly 100 Republican state lawmakers — the party dominates both chambers — also filed a legal brief in opposition to the ballot measure.

In a 5-0 ruling, the justices ordered the measure be removed, saying "the petition does not comply with the constitutional requirement that it contain the full text of the measure." Jaeger said he intends to follow the court's instruction.

The measure would have put the state's nonpartisan ethics commission in charge of the redistricting process for the Legislature. It also would have established a top-four open primary system and ranked-choice voting.

"All North Dakotans should be alarmed at how an entire political establishment came together, used all the levers of power and government, marshaled the special interests together, and denied the voters the right to make a simple choice about how our elections should be governed," said Carol Sawicki, chairwoman of North Dakota Voters First.

With North Dakota's efforts dashed, Virginia and Arkansas are the only two states in which voters will decide this fall whether to approve redistricting reform measures. Oregon also attempted to get an anti-gerrymandering initiative on the ballot, but those efforts were blocked by the U.S. Supreme Court.

On the other hand, Missourians will vote on whether to undo a redistricting reform initiative they approved two years ago.

Currently, 36 states give lawmakers the authority to draw maps for their own legislatures. Ten states use nonpartisan commissions and four have commissions staffed by politicians. For congressional districts, eight states use independent commissions.

Read More

Princeton Gerrymandering Project Gives California Prop 50 an ‘F’
Independent Voter News

Princeton Gerrymandering Project Gives California Prop 50 an ‘F’

The special election for California Prop 50 wraps up November 4 and recent polling shows the odds strongly favor its passage. The measure suspends the state’s independent congressional map for a legislative gerrymander that Princeton grades as one of the worst in the nation.

The Princeton Gerrymandering Project developed a “Redistricting Report Card” that takes metrics of partisan and racial performance data in all 50 states and converts it into a grade for partisan fairness, competitiveness, and geographic features.

Keep ReadingShow less
"Vote Here" sign

America’s political system is broken — but ranked choice voting and proportional representation could fix it.

Stephen Maturen/Getty Images

Election Reform Turns Down the Temperature of Our Politics

Politics isn’t working for most Americans. Our government can’t keep the lights on. The cost of living continues to rise. Our nation is reeling from recent acts of political violence.

79% of voters say the U.S. is in a political crisis, and 64% say our political system is too divided to solve the nation’s problems.

Keep ReadingShow less
U.S. President Barack Obama speaking on the phone in the Oval Office.

U.S. President Barack Obama talks President Barack Obama talks with President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan during a phone call from the Oval Office on November 2, 2009 in Washington, DC.

Getty Images, The White House

‘Obama, You're 15 Years Too Late!’

The mid-decade redistricting fight continues, while the word “hypocrisy” has become increasingly common in the media.

The origin of mid-decade redistricting dates back to the early history of the United States. However, its resurgence and legal acceptance primarily stem from the Texas redistricting effort in 2003, a controversial move by the Republican Party to redraw the state's congressional districts, and the 2006 U.S. Supreme Court decision in League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry. This decision, which confirmed that mid-decade redistricting is not prohibited by federal law, was a significant turning point in the acceptance of this practice.

Keep ReadingShow less
Hand of a person casting a ballot at a polling station during voting.

Gerrymandering silences communities and distorts elections. Proportional representation offers a proven path to fairer maps and real democracy.

Getty Images, bizoo_n

Gerrymandering Today, Gerrymandering Tomorrow, Gerrymandering Forever

In 1963, Alabama Governor George Wallace declared, "Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever." (Watch the video of his speech.) As a politically aware high school senior, I was shocked by the venom and anger in his voice—the open, defiant embrace of systematic disenfranchisement, so different from the quieter racism I knew growing up outside Boston.

Today, watching politicians openly rig elections, I feel that same disbelief—especially seeing Republican leaders embrace that same systematic approach: gerrymandering now, gerrymandering tomorrow, gerrymandering forever.

Keep ReadingShow less