After the official release of the 2020 census data, Max Carver for RepresentUs explains why it's critical that we understand how partisan gerrymandering disempowers voters — and more importantly, how we can end it before it's too late.
Site Navigation
Search
Latest Stories
Start your day right!
Get latest updates and insights delivered to your inbox.
Top Stories
Latest news
Read More
Gerrymandering and voting rights under review by Supreme Court again
Dec 26, 2024
On Dec. 13, The Fulcrum identified the worst examples of congressional gerrymandering currently in use.
In that news report, David Meyers wrote:
“With two post-census election cycles in the books, congressional district maps are mostly set for the remainder of the decade – which means we will know the outcomes of the vast majority of House elections before voters even cast ballots in November 2026, 2028 and 2030.
That’s because most states allow politicians to draw district maps, enabling them to use voter data to create maps that favor the party that controls the legislature. Both parties use practices like “cracking” and “packing” to divide minority-party communities across multiple districts or combine them into as few districts as possible, all to guarantee control in future elections.
This practice is known as gerrymandering, and when practiced for partisan purposes it is legal, according to the Supreme Court."
Working with gerrymandering experts, Meyers identified a dozen egregious examples of gerrymandering; however, given how common the practice is, not all districts were included.
Among those not included was a district in Louisiana that is worthy of coverage.
In 2022, the National Redistricting Foundation initiated Galmon v. Ardoin, consolidated with Robinson v. Ardoin, a lawsuit that challenged Louisiana's gerrymandered congressional map in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. NRF ultimately was successful in requiring the state to enact a new map that includes two Black opportunity districts in compliance with Section 2.
Immediately after enactment of the new map, a new lawsuit was filed and a lower court wrongly struck down Louisiana’s VRA-compliant map. Following that decision, the NRF-supported plaintiffs, alongside the Robinson plaintiffs, filed an emergency stay request to the U.S. Supreme Court asking the court to block the lower court’s decision and keep the VRA-compliant map in place for the 2024 election while the case was appealed — and the court did so. Now the Supreme Court will consider Louisiana v. Callais in its current 2024-2025 term. This case will not only determine the future of Louisiana’s VRA-compliant congressional map, but also could impact the future of critical VRA protections. Learn more about the NRF’s work here.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
The Fulcrum will continue to keep our readers apprised of updates on this critically important issue related to the health of our democracy
Nevins is co-publisher of The Fulcrum and co-founder and board chairman of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.
Keep ReadingShow less
Recommended
Open primary advocates must embrace the historic principles of change
Dec 23, 2024
This was a big year for the open primaries movement. Seven state-level campaigns and one municipal. Millions of voters declaring their support for open primaries. New leaders emerging across the country. Primary elections for the first time at the center of the national reform debate.
But with six out of eight campaigns failing at the ballot box, it’s also an important moment of reflection.
Some folks have likened this year’s losses to the normal flow of any successful change movement. But I spent almost 20 years as an attorney in the civil rights movement before joining the political reform movement. This year’s campaigns were anything but normal. There’s a core set of principles that have guided the successful development of every change movement since women’s suffrage in this country, and too often campaigns (save the tremendous work of Lisa Rice in Washington, D.C.) ignored them.
If we are going to grow into a winning movement, we have to start embracing the principles of change.
Principle 1: Build a foundation
Asking voters to change how they vote is hard work. Unlike reformers, voters don’t have the luxury of thinking about democracy reform every day. Many are ready for change, often more than reformers themselves, but they have little understanding of the issues. That requires significant investment in education and conversation.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
That can’t happen in the course of a campaign asking for their vote. Sometimes winning is the easy part, holding on to a reform requires voters to take ownership of it. A runway must be built and that can take years. Oklahoma just launched a campaign for open primaries last month, after first spending 10 years building a conversation in the Sooner State.
Principle 2: Develop grassroots and grasstops support and leadership
Change campaigns are built on a foundation of trust. Trust is everything. Voters are unwilling to vote for reform, even reform they support, unless they are absolutely sure that the intent of those advocating for that reform is genuine and not for the purpose of gaining advantage.
Several years ago, we conducted exit polling after a failed campaign in Oregon that had high polling numbers. Voters were clear-they supported the policy, but not the campaign. That means investing in the hard work of a campaign led by and supported by real people. Voters easily sniff out campaigns led by paid consultants. One campaign I spoke with this year rated their grassroots development an “F.” We must do better.
Principle 3: Offer a policy that responds to and connects with voters
In most cases, the combination of ranked choice voting and open primaries was a mistake. They are separate reforms with different politics, constituencies and histories, and most campaigns couldn’t answer the fundamental question of why they were being combined. Voters found them complicated, and they were too easily attacked by opponents as a result.
And too often, the combination was determined by a small group of funders or activists, and did not come out of any process of conversations with voters themselves. Ironic, considering that the purpose of reform is to expand, not limit political input.
Principal 4: Be honest in your messaging to voters
Having the trust of voters requires you to be honest with them. No more so than when you’re asking them to change the rules of the game.
The combination of open primaries and ranked choice voting presented clear challenges to campaigns where the former polled significantly better than the latter. For much of the past year, the refrain from PR consultants, funders and activists alike was to focus on open primaries and limit discussion of RCV. It was framed as effective messaging, but in reality it was simply dishonest.
It demeaned our work and destroyed trust.
The Grand Bargain
Every successful change campaign in America has been a grand bargain between funders and local and national activist leaders. The activists lead and the funders support them with the resources and expertise they need to be successful. Both are necessary. As we move forward trying to enact reform in an era of profound suspicion, where voters are rejecting the concentrations of wealth and power in our society at every level, that order of leadership is critical to build trust.
Too often this past year, though, campaigns were developed by funders, and decisions were made without the participation of local and national leaders. Voters saw funder/consultant-dominated campaigns this year and wholesale rejected them.
As some have likened the political reform movement trajectory to that of the marriage equality movement, it's helpful to understand how that movement was funded. From 2004 to 2013, funders spent a billion dollars over 10 years. One of the key funding partnerships was the Civil Marriage Collaborative, which included several large foundations and donors. They focused on working with key groups in the space to build a grassroots constituency and public education apparatus. They diversified their strategy to include litigation, grassroots organizing, lobbying and electing pro-LGBT politicians.
As then-CMC Director Paul Di Donato said, “the only way to achieve and defend a marriage equality victory nationwide was … changing the hearts and minds of Americans about the rightful place of LGBT people in our society and … why marriage matters for us.” That’s how movements are built.
Much of the post-mortem debate so far on 2024 has focused on public support for the particular policies put before voters — but that’s only a small part of the lessons we must learn if we’re going to move forward successfully and build this movement. The opportunity is all in front of us — if we embrace the “how” and follow key tenets of change that have driven every reform movement before us.
Gruber is senior vice president of Open Primaries.
Keep ReadingShow less
The path forward for electoral reform
Dec 16, 2024
The National Association of Nonpartisan Reformers hosted its post-election gathering Dec. 2-4 in San Diego. More than 120 leaders from across the country convened to reflect on the November elections, where reform campaigns achieved mixed results with multiple state losses, and to chart a path forward for nonpartisan electoral reforms. As the Bridge Alliance Education Fund is a founding member of NANR and I currently serve on the board, I attended the gathering in hopes of getting some insight on how we can best serve the collective needs of the electoral reform community in the coming year.
A key question driving the discussions was: Why did voters, who expressed deep dissatisfaction with the current system by electing Donald Trump, reject key electoral reform measures designed to fix problems that they repeatedly report being dissatisfied with? This paradox shaped the event’s conversations and underscored the challenges of connecting reforms to voters' frustrations.
Election Results: Wins and Losses
Among the victories, Washington, D.C., passed an open primary initiative, North Dakota protected the ballot initiative process and Arizona defeated a ban on open primaries. Additionally, Oak Park, Illinois, adopted ranked choice voting locally, and Bloomington, Minnesota, defeated a measure to reverse ranked choice voting. In a close result, the state of Alaska also narrowly maintained its open primaries in a closely contested decision.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
However, setbacks were significant. Open primary initiatives failed in Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada and South Dakota. Oregon’s ranked choice voting initiative and Ohio’s anti-gerrymandering initiative were also defeated. The mixed results emphasized both the potential and the persistent obstacles of advancing nonpartisan reforms.
Reforms Gain Ground Despite Challenges
Nick Troiano of Unite America highlighted a silver lining: Almost 8 million Americans supported reform initiatives, with campaigns operating on a combined budget of less than 1 percent of the $20 billion spent during the presidential cycle. Troiano reminded attendees of the uphill battle reformers face in a political environment dominated by polarization and outsized spending, including millions spent specifically by the Democratic and Republican parties themselves.
John Opdycke of Open Primaries addressed the issue of funding as well, noting that reform campaigns received more financial backing than expected given the cycle’s focus on "funding both sides." However, he emphasized that the challenge extends beyond funding — it’s about building a sustainable movement, not just running campaigns.
But “movement building” became a significant challenge identified during the gathering. Too often, the “reform movement” is narrowly associated with ranked choice voting and open primaries, which are designed to include independent voices and discourage extreme candidates. The focus on those two issues can result in sidelining other impactful initiatives like vote-at-home policies and deliberative democracy efforts. With a coalition as diverse as the one represented at NANR, developing a cohesive narrative remains a significant hurdle.
Reform means different things to different people. Some may favor ranked choice voting because it makes it easier for independent candidates to win, while others support it because it generates less extreme candidates. Since the bridge-building field shares the goal of focusing on less extreme voices, does that mean bridging should be part of the reform “movement”? Leaders in both fields have strong opinions both ways.
These are complex questions and now is the perfect time for the reform movement to not only adapt strategies for existing initiatives but to also explore how we can engage citizens in fundamental democracy issues that they care about most.
Political Resistance
Opposition campaigns often exploited cultural and political tensions to defeat reform measures.
Republican opponents of reform used the slogan “Open borders, open bathrooms, open primaries” to stoke cultural anxieties, tying electoral reform to unrelated national controversies.
Similarly, in Colorado, trusted Democratic messengers like Elizabeth Warren perpetuated anti-reform messages that contributed to the reform loss.
The subsequent loss in Colorado really highlights the reality that it’s going to take in-state, grassroot efforts to truly turn the tide toward statewide electoral reforms. A September 2024 poll in Colorado showed that 64 percent of respondents supported electoral reform with broad appeal among demographics. How does this polling relate to only 45 percent of Colorado voters actually supporting reform in November? In many states, questions and concerns about out-of-state interests funding the initiatives was a significant factor in the losses. Colorado was different — prominent funder Kent Thiry is a Coloradan, but his involvement paradoxically raised concerns about his political motives, which calls into the spotlight the nuanced challenge of addressing voter skepticism about reform campaigns.
Listening and Learning
There is no shortage of opinions on the “why” of these losses and polling to try and determine the “how.” The Fulcrum shared some analyses by Lee Drutman in November as well. Leaders in the reform community are acutely aware of the wide range of opinions and theories put forth by politicians, political insiders, polling, and the media. But what about the voters?
Leaders also recognized the need for deeper listening — not just polling — to connect voter frustrations with clear, relatable solutions. This approach requires moving beyond surface-level analysis to address the root causes of voter disengagement and resistance.
The event was marked by a spirit of reflection rather than excuse-making. Looking at reasons for our losses and planning for the future included some hard realities. Todd Connor of Veterans for All Voters encapsulated my own critical takeaway from the gathering: “If our involvement in reform is limited to attending gatherings and Zoom calls, we are not close enough to the work.” Reformers must engage deeply with voters to understand their concerns and demonstrate how proposed reforms address these issues.
Looking Ahead
The gathering concluded with a commitment to move beyond post-election analysis and focus on actionable steps. Reformers identified several priorities for the future:
- Crafting a unified narrative: Developing a cohesive story that connects diverse reform initiatives under a shared vision for democracy.
- Deep listening: Engaging with voters to understand their concerns and bridge the gap between frustrations and solutions.
- Sustainable investment: Shifting from campaign-focused funding to long-term movement-building.
Maintaining momentum among the nearly 8 million voters who supported reforms in 2024 is a critical task for reform organizations. Attendees emphasized the need to avoid the mistake made by major political parties: ignoring these voters until the next election cycle. By staying engaged and demonstrating tangible progress, the reform movement can build a stronger, more participatory base.
The NANR gathering reaffirmed a shared commitment to addressing the systemic challenges that undermine American democracy. By embracing lessons from recent losses and focusing on long-term, transformative change, the reform movement aims to align its efforts with the public’s demand for a political system that truly serves everyone. While obstacles remain, the resolve displayed in San Diego offers hope for a more inclusive and participatory future
Becvar is co-publisher of The Fulcrum and executive director of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.
Keep ReadingShow less
How Alaska is making government work again
Dec 16, 2024
At the end of a bitter and closely divided election season, there’s a genuine bright spot for democracy from our 49th state: Alaskans decided to keep the state’s system of open primaries and ranked choice voting because it is working.
This is good news not only for Alaska, but for all of us ready for a government that works together to get things done for voters.
Alaska’s new system has only been in place for two years. Yet, voters protected it from a repeal effort driven from the extremes because it has already delivered results that Americans in other cities and states would be wise to look to.
I was born and raised in Alaska, so I can attest that ranked choice voting and open primaries have returned a spirit of problem-solving and collegiality to a state where voters want practical results instead of partisan plays. The reality of the state’s terrain and climate require Alaskans to rely on our neighbors no matter their politics.
Before voters enacted this reform, however, Alaska’s Legislature had stopped working this way. Like so many legislatures across the country, lawmaking was stifled by elected leaders beholden to a small partisan primary electorate rather than the needs of the majority. Many Alaskan voters felt alienated by how toxic and partisan elections had become, contributing to lower turnout and engagement, particularly among rural and Alaska Native communities.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
As a result, Alaska’s Legislature was one of the least productive in the country. Lawmakers failed to agree on a budget and couldn’t pass key bills on topics like education, pensions and health care.
Now, that problem-solving spirit is back. With ranked choice voting and open primaries, Alaskans running for office need to talk — and listen — to all of their voters. In Alaska’s system, the top four finishers in an open primary advance to the general election. There, voters have the option of ranking candidates according to their preferences. The winner is the candidate supported by the majority of Alaska’s voters.
In other words, candidates campaign not just to a partisan base, but to all voters in their state.
Voters — including the nearly 60 percent of Alaska voters unaffiliated with either party — have seen firsthand how effective this new system is. In 2022, nearly 20 percent of Alaskans ranked candidates of multiple parties, simply voting for the candidates they thought would do the best job. Alaskans have found ranked choice voting easyto use and like the results it generated.
Yet, the most important improvement hasn’t been the election itself, but what comes after. Those who win know that they have a mandate to solve problems, having won support from a real majority of voters. As a result, lawmakers from across Alaska’s political landscape — Republicans, Democrats and independents — have come together to create governing coalitions that have made real nonpartisan progress on addressing energy issues, growing the state’s economy and workforce, and improving public education.
And so a broadcoalition of Alaskans came forth to protect the reform, even as extreme partisans encouraged them to repeal it and put them back in charge.
The final results were close. But Alaskans of all backgrounds were heard loud and clear. The new system worked, and it is here to stay.
This is a proven and viable system that rescued Alaskan politics from the ditch of dysfunction and potholes of polarization. Just think what ranked choice voting and open primaries could do in your state.
It’s true that voters in three other states (Idaho, Colorado, Nevada) turned similar systems down this year — in part because they were drowned out by millions of dollars and old-fashioned partisan misinformation from those seeking to preserve their hold on power But Alaska is proof that the people who use this system like it and will work to retain it.
Meanwhile, ranked choice voting’s momentum continued unabated at the city level in November. Washington, D.C., voted overwhelmingly to adopt it, as did Oak Park, Illinois. That makes 31 wins in its last 32 votes at the city level, for what has become one of the nation’s most potent and popular election reforms.
That march forward will continue, and the governing results from Alaska are the reason why. Ranked choice voting will keep growing because it works for voters and elected leaders who want to get things done — and voters know it.
Sumpter is president and CEO of FairVote, a nonpartisan organization seeking better elections.
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More