Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Gerrymandered Pennsylvanians seeking a redress of their grievances

Opinion

Gerrymandering in Pennsylvania
Kuniholm is chairwoman of Fair Districts PA, created four years ago by other good-government groups in Pennsylvania to end partisanship in drawing of the state's legislative and congressional maps.

The Fourth of July commemorates the abiding right of the governed to alter or abolish any form of government that ignores the people's voice. The Declaration of Independence, signed 244 years ago last week, lists repeated injuries and usurpations that deprived the colonists of a voice in the establishment of laws, concluding: "In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injuries."

Supporters of redistricting reform considered those words over the holiday weekend with sadness. Some of us have spent 30 years asking for redress of an unfair redistricting process and an increasingly intransigent legislature.

More recently, we have attempted every lawful avenue of request, petitioning our representatives in Harrisburg in every way we know — with meetings, calls, emails, letters, postcards, op-eds, billboards, radio ads, petitions and resolutions of support. All have been met with silence, or with empty statements of support by those who could schedule a vote or easily move this reform forward.

Many members of the General Assembly, from both sides of the aisle, applaud and affirm our efforts. They know that the current system puts far too much power in the hands of just a few leaders — allowing men (they are all men) elected by a tiny fraction of the state's voters to draw district lines, set the legislative agenda and lock out any voice of dissent.

Those who hold the levers of power have ignored or blocked our continued petitions.

I write this on behalf of 70 members of the Fair Districts PA team. In the past month we have sent letters signed by hundreds of constituents to the Republicans who run the Senate, Joe Scarnati and Jake Corman, and Chairman John DiSanto of the Senate's State Government Committee. No response.

We have asked the new speaker of the House, Republican Bryan Cutler, and Chairman Garth Everett of that chamber's State Government Committee for a vote on bills. But we have received no assistance and no acknowledgement of the pressing deadline, which has now passed, for enacting this reform.

Thousands of Fair Districts PA supporters have now seen how arbitrary and unresponsive our Legislature has become.

Dozens of us have asked legislators for meetings and had no acknowledgment of the request.

Dozens have contacted legislators only to be told: "I'll let you know if I have questions. I see no reason to meet."

Dozens have met with legislators who say "this is a Democrat bill" or "you're a Democrat group" — both statements are untrue — as if that negates the request or absolves them of the need to consider its merits.

And most of us have been told the following don't matter:

  • Our number of cosponsors, the most of any bills in this or the last session.
  • The local resolutions supporting us, representing more than 70 percent of the population.
  • Our more than 100,00 petition signers.
  • The polling consistently showing more than two-thirds of voters support a citizens commission to take the place of the Legislature in drawing election district boundaries.

We've watched with sadness as bills introduced with one or two sponsors speed through both chambers without public comment, expert testimony or any evidence of public support.

We've listened with sadness as friendly legislators explain that "The bills that move are the ones leaders choose. It has nothing to do with what voters want."

We grieve as fellow supporters turn away in disgust, with the sad refrain, "Why bother?"

Our government is in a dangerous place: unaccountable, unresponsive, deeply divided, less and less able to hear the voices of those it promises to serve.

Unless our legislators return this summer, it is now too late to amend the state Constitution and institute an independent commission for legislative redistricting in time for 2021. But there are other possible remedies: strong guardrails on the current redistricting processes, immediate attention to legislative rules that put far too much power in the hands of too few leaders.

But this is what we want most: A change of heart, a course correction in the halls of Harrisburg. The voices of all voters should matter to every legislator — not just the the party faithful in a handful of leaders' home districts.

Until this changes, nothing changes.


Read More

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
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