The 2013 Supreme Court case striking down a central provision of the Voting Rights Act : the formula for deciding which states and counties had such egregious histories of political discrimination that all of their voting procedures should be subject to advance federal government approval, known as preclearance .
Read more about Shelby County v. Holder.
This nonpartisan policy brief, written by an ACE fellow, is republished by The Fulcrum as part of our partnership with the Alliance for Civic Engagement and our NextGen initiative — elevating student voices, strengthening civic education, and helping readers better understand democracy and public policy.
Key Takeaways
What is the Gas Tax?
Transit funding in California comes from a variety of sources, including the gas tax. In fact, most state funding comes from the state tax on gasoline. The revenue is distributed to support the maintenance of city streets, bridges, state highways, and more.
In 2017, former Governor Jerry Brown signed the Road Repair and Accountability Act (Senate Bill 1) into law. This legislation marked a significant investment in California’s transportation infrastructure, and was the first time the state’s gas tax was increased since 1994.
Overview of the Gas Tax Debate
Although the state charges the tax to gasoline suppliers, this cost tends to get passed on to drivers through higher gas prices. Additionally, since the passage of Senate Bill 1, the state gas tax is set to increase annually with inflation. California’s tax on gasoline is the highest in the country — one of several factors contributing to the high prices California drivers typically pay at the pump.
(Image Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration)
Gasoline prices in California consistently exceed the national average. Along with the gas tax, compliance with the state’s environmental regulations adds costs for fuel suppliers, often leading to higher prices.
Despite the high prices, the amount of funding collected from the state gas tax has been substantially decreasing. Some research projections indicate that with increased electric vehicle use, the state may soon face a significant decline in gas tax revenue if the current revenue structure is not revised or replaced.
Pros and Cons of California’s Environmental Regulations
Many have urged policy changes to bring gas prices down. In 2025, the California Republican congressional delegation called for Governor Gavin Newsom to hold off on implementing new updates from the California Air Resources Board. These amendments would tighten some existing requirements under the Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS), with “aims to accelerate the adoption of zero-emission infrastructure.” Many republicans opposed these changes out of concern that they would further strain suppliers and thus increase retail fuel prices.
Critics of California’s environmental policies also argue that these strict gas tax rules have led to refinery closures, creating a worsening gasoline supply crisis. Some economists have estimated that in 2026, the closures of two major refineries “will result in an additional $1.21 increase in gasoline prices, which could result in California gasoline prices being over $2.50 higher than in the rest of the country.”
However, proponents of the state’s regulations argue that the long-term benefits are significant, both environmentally and financially. For example, the LCFS has been described as an evidence-based effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and toxic air pollutants, improving air quality. Governor Newsom’s office has also stated that “in the long term, LCFS is estimated to reduce fuel costs for Californians per mile by 42% – translating to savings of over $20 billion in gasoline costs every year by 2045.”
A Mileage-Based Alternative?
With the rise in electric vehicle usage and the closures of several in-state refineries, recent conversations have turned to alternative methods of raising funds for transportation services instead of the gas tax. One of these proposals is a road usage fee, based on miles driven. The state has considered potential models of road charge systems for some time. In 2017, the Road Charge Pilot Program explored considerations like the complexity, feasibility, and functionality of road usage models. The study “confirmed the viability of many aspects of a user-based transportation revenue mechanism,” and the California State Transportation Agency has encouraged continued research.
Supporters argue that charging based on miles driven would increase fairness, as drivers of both gas and electric vehicles would contribute. Analysis has shown that a flat-rate road usage charge would help to reduce some inequities in the burden of transportation fees. For example, such a model would “generally shift the fuel tax burden from lower-income to higher-income households” according to researchers with the Mineta Transportation Institute.
Others have raised concerns about unintended side effects of a usage-based model. Currently, electric vehicle drivers in California pay additional registration fees to help make up for lost gas tax revenues. If a road usage charge was added, these drivers might face excessive costs, which could potentially disincentivize electric vehicle usage and its intended environmental benefits. Similarly, if usage fees were to be implemented in addition to the gas tax instead of replacing it, gas vehicle drivers would experience higher costs as well. Concerns have also been raised about the administrative burden of switching to a new program, and the potential for government overreach with the monitoring of drivers’ road usage.
Looking Forward
Ultimately, much of the discussion around a road usage charge can be considered preliminary. California lawmakers have not passed a mileage tax, despite some claims online. In March 2025, the Assembly and State Senate Transportation Committees held an informational hearing regarding declining gas tax revenues and potential paths forward. More recently, the State Assembly approved a measure for the California Transportation Commission to continue a long-term study of possible mileage-based models.
Frequently Asked Questions
What does the gas tax pay for?
How does the gas tax affect gas prices?
How would a road usage charge work?
Is California switching to a road charge model?
Gen Z is quietly leaving social media as algorithmic feeds, infinite scroll, and addictive platform design fuel anxiety, isolation, and mental health struggles.
Lately, it seems like each time I reach out to an old acquaintance through social media, I’m met with a page that reads, “This account doesn’t exist anymore.”
Many Gen-Z’ers are quietly quitting the platforms we grew up on.
This is understandable. While designed to be a public space spurring connection, many of these platforms now do the opposite: They are driving young people apart and making us more isolated.
The solution, however, should not be quiet quitting: Instead, young people need our legislators to hold Big Tech accountable for making these platforms usable and sustainable, instead of yet another tool to exploit our vulnerabilities. We need legislation that makes social media social again.
Ironically, although up to 95% of teens use social media daily, young people feel more isolated than ever. Over 60% have reported feeling no real sense of identity. And those who reported higher use of these “social” platforms were substantially more likely to experience depression, anxiety, and other negative mental health impacts.
This is not a coincidence. It is by design. While many platforms originated out of a desire to connect people, their business models have largely shifted to prioritize profit over their consumers. Their product design reflects this.
For example, in 2016, Instagram, Meta, and Twitter removed chronological feeds, which listed posts from people you follow in the order they were posted. Instead, they introduced algorithmic feeds, collecting user data in order to push trending or “relevant” content. Research has found that these algorithmic feeds rely heavily on sensationalist content that garners intense emotion to keep users engaged for longer. This longer engagement prompts the algorithm to show similar types of content, starting a negative feedback loop. For example, a study from the Center for Countering Digital Hate found that YouTube users who express interest in fitness or dieting are often then pushed content that worsens body image.
Similarly, the introduction of short-form video platforms like TikTok and Instagram brought with it the infinite scroll. Long gone are the days when you could scroll to the bottom of the page and be told that “you’re all caught up.” Instead, these platforms offer a never-ending feed of content. When paired with predatory algorithmic feeds, this infinite feed creates an addictive dopamine loop, which can disrupt sleep patterns and trigger anxiousness around “missing out.” Research has found that infinite scrolls are particularly dangerous to young people, who have not yet fully developed impulse control.
Frustrated parents and teachers often argue that young people should just put down their phones or delete their social media. Some young people can do this. But for others, social media is the only landscape they know. It’s their primary means to connect with their friends and family.
Moreover, some young people literally cannot put down the phone: Internal documents from Meta and YouTube showed these platforms knew the features they implemented were addictive, yet still released them. In March, these companies lost a landmark social media case, finding them liable for creating addictive platforms.
As the name would imply, social media platforms were meant to be social–not money grabs. My generation, and those behind us, need that to be true again. As the recent Meta case showed, we cannot depend on tech companies to voluntarily change their predatory practices. Instead, we need regulations to call them to account.
We are starting to see efforts across the country to do so. On April 29th, Michigan’s state senate passed SB 757, as part of the “Kids Over Clicks” legislative package, which would prohibit minors from addictive, data-driven algorithms. Also in April, Massachusetts’ governor called for the disabling of infinite scroll and autoplay for users who are determined to be under 18. These policy efforts are a great first step, but they are not enough. We must continue this momentum across the state and federal levels.
Young people across the country have been calling for design-based regulation, like allowing the disabling of infinite scroll and algorithmic feeds, as well as better labeling of sensitive content. If legislators heed the call by making social media companies accountable, they can once again become a place where young people can talk, exchange ideas, and build a long-term culture that gives us a real sense of purpose. Putting the social back in social media is necessary to uphold the social fabric of my generation.
Sparkle Rainey is a youth activist and communications director at Young People’s Alliance. She is a Public Voices Fellow on Youth Well-Being and Power with The OpEd Project and Hopelab.
The Supreme Court, in holding that partisan gerrymandering is permissible—unless it "goes too far"—stated that the argument made against this practice based on the Court's "one person, one vote" doctrine didn't work because the cases that developed that doctrine were about ensuring that each vote had an equal weight. The Court reasoned that after redistricting, each vote still has equal weight.
I would respectfully disagree. After admittedly partisan redistricting, each vote does not have an equal weight. The purpose of partisan gerrymandering is typically to create a "safe" seat—to group citizens so that the dominant political party has a clear majority of the voters. It's the transformation of a contested seat or even a seat safe for the other party into a safe seat for the party doing the redistricting.
The Court has said that the question is, how much partisan dominance is too much. The answer should be: if the new district is a "safe" district for the dominant party rather than a contested one, it is too much because it intentionally undermines the equal value of everyone's votes.
The whole purpose of gerrymandered redistricting is usually to create districts where the dominant party cannot lose because of its voting advantage, making it impossible for those of the other party and independents to band together to elect the representatives they want. The purpose is to create a "safe" district, not a contested one. The argument against this practice is not that the not-dominant party has a right to elect representatives of its choice—the Court having said there is no such guarantee—but that their vote is no longer of equal weight.
The suggested standard is: When the dominant party redistricts to create safe districts for itself rather than contested ones, it has gone too far. When a party has a clear majority in a district by the luck of the draw, the natural cluster of voters, that's random and not justiciable. But when the party intentionally creates such a district, it violates the 14th Amendment's one-person, one-vote rule: the voters of the dominant party who are in the clear majority in the new district have greater value than those of the other party. That is partisan dominance going too far.
And where the district that is being broken up is a Black-majority district, then you have the added fact that Blacks—after redistricting—have "less opportunity than other members of the electorate" to elect representatives of their choice. Whereas before the redistricting, as in Memphis, they resided in an area where they were "sufficiently numerous and compact to constitute a majority in a reasonably configured district" (this is a very different set of facts than the ones in Callais), after redistricting, that was no longer the case. Blacks then had less opportunity than their White peers of the dominant party to constitute a majority and elect representatives of their choice—that's the purpose of breaking up the Black-majority district—and that is a racial gerrymander in violation of the Voting Rights Act.
Nor can it be said, as the Court has said in the past, that this dilution of the Black vote is no different from partisan gerrymandering, which they have ruled is not justiciable. The Court has also said that when both purposes are present, the one less problematic [as to its constitutionality] is deemed the operating force.
The court has assumed, barring specific data-driven proof otherwise, that the Black vote is the same as the Democratic vote because Blacks as a bloc consistently vote Democratic. Thus, the Court has stated that diluting the Black vote and diluting the Democratic vote is one and the same thing.
While that voting fact is true, it is not true that Blacks vote as Democrats. They vote Democratic primarily because it is the only party that has consistently supported Black interests. If Republicans took up the Black cause, they would vote Republican. Thus, they are voting specifically as Blacks, not as Democrats. And so when their vote is diluted, it is their vote as Blacks, not as Democrats, that is being diluted.
Finally, even assuming that diluting the Black vote was the same as diluting the Democratic vote, where both purposes—partisan and racial—are present, to deem the less problematic purpose the operating force is an affront to the Constitution. If both an unconstitutional and a constitutional purpose are present, the unconstitutional purpose should always take precedence for the Court because it is the Court's mandate to see that the Constitution is not violated, to secure the benefits of the Constitution's protections for those who fall under it.
In the hypothetical cases described, whether viewed as a partisan or racial gerrymander, they are both violations of the law. In the first instance, it violates the 14th Amendment because it violates the one-person, one-vote rule. In the second instance, it violates the Voting Rights Act because the redistricting offers Blacks less opportunity than other members of the electorate to elect representatives of their choosing; should the Court continue to find that Black votes and Democratic votes are indistinguishable, then it would be a partisan gerrymander that would be in violation of the 14th Amendment because it violates the one person, one vote rule.
Ronald L. Hirsch is a teacher, legal aid lawyer, survey researcher, nonprofit executive, consultant, composer, author, and volunteer. He is a graduate of Brown University and the University of Chicago Law School and the author of We Still Hold These Truths. Read more of his writing at www.PreservingAmericanValues.com
WASHINGTON –More than 2,000 law enforcement officers from across the country rode into the nation’s capital last Tuesday for the annual Police Unity Tour, marking one of many events taking place during National Police Week.
The event, held at the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial, honors officers who lost their lives in the line of duty and brings together law enforcement officers and surviving families for a multi-day bicycle ride into the memorial.
According to the FBI, 107 officers died in the line of duty, including 43 felonious killings and 43 accidental deaths. More than 24,000 officers have died in the line of duty throughout U.S. history. The National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial honors the names of all of them.
The Police Unity Tour’s origins date back to 1997, when New Jersey police officer Patrick Montoure organized a four-day fundraising bike ride to raise awareness and support for fallen officers. What began with just 18 riders has since grown into a nationwide movement.
Today, the organization has eight chapters across New Jersey, Virginia, California, Florida, and Delaware. While each chapter begins at a different starting point, they all come together in Washington, D.C., for one final ride into the memorial.
For many riders, the journey was deeply personal. New Jersey State Trooper Oluteju Ishola said this was his first time participating in the event and that he rode in honor of his partner, who passed away on January 7.
“It was challenges, some days were challenges. Some days, you know, you had to push through it, you know, early mornings…late nights,” said Ishola.
But he said the support from communities along the route is what kept him going.
Other riders said the event also highlights the realities and dangers of law enforcement work, but reminds surviving families that their loved ones’ sacrifices will never be forgotten.
Kaitlin Bender-Thomas is a graduate journalism student at Northwestern University and a reporter for the Medill News Service.
Some MAGA loyalists have turned on Trump. Why the rest haven’t