Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Redistricting experts flag partisan gerrymandering in Ohio's new maps

F grade
erhui1979/Getty Images

As states start to redraw their election maps for the new decade, redistricting experts have already flagged a state for extreme partisan gerrymandering.

The map for Ohio's House of Representatives gives significant advantage to Republicans, according to the Redistricting Report Card tool created by the Princeton Gerrymandering Project and RepresentUs. The two good-government groups, which are collaborating to analyze state legislative and congressional maps as they are proposed and approved this year, did find an exemplar in Colorado.


Because the Ohio House map was a clear GOP gerrymander it was graded an F. Ohio's Senate map received a B because it similarly advantages Republicans, but to a lesser degree. The congressional district maps have not yet been finalized or graded.

"The Ohio Senate map scores higher because each Senate district is an aggregation of three house districts that appear to have been fine-tuned to produce a partisan advantage in the house maps. That effect is diluted when these districts are put together into one larger district," RepresentUs explained.

For state legislative maps, Ohio uses a seven-member commission composed of the governor, state auditor, secretary of state and one person appointed by each legislative leader. If at least two commissioners from each party vote in favor of the redistricting plans, then they will remain in effect for the entire decade. However, this year's state maps were passed on a party-line vote, so they will only be in use for four years.

In contrast, watchdogs highlight Colorado as a leading example for how to curb partisan gerrymandering. This redistricting cycle is the first in which an independent commission, approved by voters in 2018, is in charge of drawing new election maps.

While Colorado's eight congressional districts have not yet been finalized for this decade, the proposed plans (expected to be finalized by the end of the month) have all received A's from the Redistricting Report Card. The state legislative maps are also being drafted, but have not yet been analyzed for partisan fairness and competitiveness.

Colorado's proposed congressional districts so far have created no partisan advantage and kept Hispanic and Native American communities intact. RepresentUs and the Princeton Gerrymandering Project also commended the state redistricting commission for using public feedback to improve the maps.

"The vast majority of Americans despise gerrymandering and want the map-drawing process to be free from partisan influence. Clearly, Colorado passed that test and Ohio didn't," said RepresentUs CEO Josh Silver.

As more state maps are finalized, RepresentUs and the Princeton Gerrymandering Project will continue to analyze the proposed districts and flag instances of partisan gerrymandering.


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