Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

The first redistricting lawsuits are here

Eric Holder

Former Attorney General Eric Holder said Republican campaigns to restrict ballot access are connected to looming partisan gerrymandering efforts.

Drew Angerer/Getty Images

Hours after new redistricting data was released by the Census Bureau, lawsuits were filed Monday night to toss out expired election maps in three states.

Former Attorney General Eric Holder, who heads the National Democratic Redistricting Committee, and prominent Democratic voting rights lawyer Marc Elias filed the suits in federal and state courts on behalf of voters in Louisiana, Minnesota and Pennsylvania. They argue that population changes over the last decade have rendered the current maps unconstitutional.

Because these states have divided governments, it's likely that partisan disputes will prevent them from agreeing on new election maps in time for the 2022 midterms. The litigation was filed in anticipation of an impasse and with the hopes of expediting court-drawn maps.


Both Louisiana, with six congressional seats, and Pennsylvania, with 18 congressional seats, have Democratic governors and Republican-majority legislatures. Minnesota (eight congressional seats) has a Democratic governor and state House but a Republican state Senate.

Pennsylvania was the only state of the three to lose a House seat after the Census Bureau reported the new state population counts Monday afternoon.

Due to population shifts over the past decade, the lawsuits argue, the states' congressional maps have been rendered malapportioned and are therefore unconstitutional. The suits seek to prevent the states from using the current maps in any future elections. They also ask the courts to mandate the implementation of new maps that adhere to the "one person, one vote" constitutional requirement, in the event that the legislature and governor fail to agree on maps.

During a press call on Tuesday, Holder linked the GOP-led efforts across the country to roll back voting access to the partisan gerrymandering that will inevitably take place this year.

"What we're facing right now is a Republican Party that has shown that they're willing to bend or break the rules of democracy, simply to hold on to power," he said. "I have no doubt that the same Republican legislators who have pushed these bills will now try to use the redistricting process to illegitimately lock in power."

The goal of the litigation filed this week, Holder said, is to protect the integrity of the redistricting process and ensure fair maps and representation across the country.

Elias, who will be litigating the cases, said these redistricting lawsuits won't be the last filed this year. In addition to these three states, there are six more with divided governments and no independent redistricting commissions, so disagreements over election maps are likely to occur.

"We are prepared and ready to use every legal tool available to make sure that new maps do not unfairly treat voters," Elias said. "These lawsuits ensure that there is a backstop if and when the normal process breaks down or if there is a deadlock between the legislature and the governor which is more than likely going to be the case."


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