Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Meet the reformer: Brian Cannon, closing in on a new way to draw the Old Dominion's maps

Brian Cannon of One Virginia at the Supreme Court

Brian Cannon at a rally last year when the Supreme Court heard arguments about the limits of partisan gerrymandering, ultimately deciding such disputes were not for federal courts to review.

Brian Cannon

Brian Cannon has been pursuing a singular goal for five and a half years as executive director of One Virginia, growing its roster of supporters from 3,500 to more than 100,000. And in November the people of Virginia look ready to reward his work: Approval looks likely for a ballot measure creating an independent commission to draw Virginia's legislative and congressional boundaries — joining 13 other states in taking such work away from politicians who would otherwise be able to pick their own voters. Cannon came to the work after winning a statewide redistricting contest in law school, although after graduating he spent a few years as a startup business consultant. His answers have been edited for clarity and length.

What's the tweet-length description of your organization?

@1VA2021 is a trans-partisan good govt org focused on ending gerrymandering in Virginia. We believe that voting districts belong to Virginians, not to any party or politician.


Describe your very first civic engagement.

When I was an undergraduate at William & Mary, there was a huge bond referendum on the 2002 ballot that would benefit higher ed in Virginia. A few friends and I saw that the only people advocating for it were college presidents and lobbyists — not any college students. We decided to change that and formed the first student-run political action committee in the country. It taught me there's a seat at the table for young voters if they do their policy homework, show up and honestly engage. Shortly thereafter we began working on textbook prices and the lack of competitive pay for our professors.

The Students PAC morphed into a wonderful advocacy organization called Virginia21 dedicated to giving young Virginians a chance to engage in state politics and policy-making.

What was your biggest professional triumph?

I hope it's ahead of me, because I am working every day to give us a chance at fair maps in Virginia in 2021. So far, the list is topped by getting the redistricting reform proposal through the General Assembly and on to the November ballot. It was the culmination in March of intense grassroots lobbying building up over several years. Approval of this reform would be historic for Virginia, for the South and for the growing movement for fair maps around the country. It will take redistricting out of the smoky backroom, put citizens with an equal say at the table, add transparency, and enshrine minority voter protections in our state constitution.

And your most disappointing setback?

There are so many little losses from which I've learned, but perhaps the most disappointing was in 2018. Like asking a thief to return the jewels, a federal court told legislators to redraw 11 state House districts it said were racially gerrymandered. Both parties came up with new maps that were still racial gerrymanders — but which served the electoral needs of Democrats and Republicans alike. It was clear to all of us watching that this wasn't how it should work, yet it happened anyway.

What was disappointing was that we had a chance to do it better. We had worked for years to persuade a number of legislators to commit to an open and transparent process with citizen engagement — but some of our best allies decided that wasn't worth doing at that point.

How does your identity influence the way you go about your work?

I'm a Democrat but view myself as a reformer first. There are so many things broken in our system: campaign finance laws, first-past-the-post voting, redistricting. I don't have answers for the big problems with our tax structure, health care system or climate — but I do know we'll never get them without honest, inclusive conversations in our representative bodies. Right now, the system is rigged to make these conversations unproductive, if not impossible.

What's the best advice you've ever been given?

College convocation speeches usually go in one ear and out the other of an 18-year-old the first week on campus, but the address when I arrived has stayed with me. Timothy Sullivan, our college president, contrasted President Kennedy's pro-government inaugural address in 1961 ("Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country") with President Reagan's anti-government inaugural address in 1981 ("Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem"). And he said our task as students in 2000 would be finding the synthesis between these two seemingly incompatible ideas. It's a charge I've taken to heart.

Create a new flavor for Ben & Jerry's.

Somehow, it would capture the spirit of Dave Daley's "UnRigged: How Americans are Battling Back to Save Democracy." He's a vegan, so it would need to respect that. There would have to be purple to represent bipartisanship. And nuts, because we're all a bit nuts to be in this reform space advocating for things most consider long-shots. After consulting an ice cream maker friend: vanilla oat milk ice cream swirled with a blueberry and fresh mint compote with a healthy dose of hazelnut cookie crumble.

What's your favorite political movie or TV show?

HBO's "Veep," because Julia Louis-Dreyfus and her castmates nail political satire so well that it's uncomfortable. I'm also, obviously, a "West Wing" fan, but that's nowhere near what real life is. Still, like "Veep," it gives those operating in a political sphere a lingua franca for our experiences.

What's the last thing you do on your phone at night?

I'm a big fan of Audible, so usually I'm listening to a book to wind down. The last one was about Churchill, Erik Larson's "The Splendid and the Vile." If I'm between books, though, I'll scroll Pinterest and think about all the gardening, cooking, exercising, and DIY hacks I could do.

What is your deepest, darkest secret?

I'm a grown, married man with two children. I cook meals for my family that are generally healthy and balanced. But if I'm alone for the evening, I'll often hit up the Taco Bell drive-thru for a Cheesy Gordita Crunch, a soft shell taco, a bean burrito — and those delicious cinnamon twists!


Read More

AI chip
a computer chip with the letter a on top of it
Photo by Igor Omilaev on Unsplash

We Should Regulate AI to Make It Grow Faster

The debate over artificial intelligence has become divided between two powerful ideas: that we need a “moratorium” to slow AI until we can make it safe, and that regulating AI will slow the innovation we need for our economy and national security. Both concerns are legitimate. But “moratorium” and “slowing AI growth” are divisive terms: they reassure those concerned about AI's safety, economic and environmental consequences while alarming those who see AI competition and national security as urgent priorities. We need a different starting point—meaningful regulation that provides the safeguards necessary to protect people, communities and the environment while creating the conditions for AI to continue growing. The experiences of Europe and China challenge the assumption that regulation must slow AI.

China has combined increasingly detailed, technology-specific AI regulation with substantial government support for AI development. Recent studies provide evidence that this approach can promote innovation. One 2026 study of Chinese companies from 2017 through 2023 found that the creation of national AI innovation and development pilot zones significantly increased corporate digital transformation, in part through increased research and development, human capital and reduced transition costs. Another 2026 study, covering Chinese manufacturing companies from 2014 through 2024, found that the same policy significantly promoted the adoption of intelligent technologies.

Keep ReadingShow less
The History of U.S. Prevention Through Deterrence: Effective Border Policy or Humanitarian Risk?

The History of U.S. Prevention Through Deterrence: Effective Border Policy or Humanitarian Risk?

A Brief History of Prevention Through Deterrence

The U.S. Border Patrol agency has evolved greatly over the years, shifting its focus to address changing national security concerns. It was originally established in 1924 to restrict illegal immigration by Chinese and European immigrants before moving to restrict alcohol smuggling during Prohibition. The agency adopted its current focus on illegal immigration from Mexico during the 1970s, when immigration pressures coincided with a severe economic recession in the United States. In 1994, the Border Patrol released a strategy document with the support of the Clinton administration which introduced an approach to immigration known as Prevention Through Deterrence. This tactic aimed to discourage border crossings by funneling immigrants through border entry points with harsh terrain, in contrast with previous policies based on arrest and apprehension post-entry.

Successful Prevention Through Deterrence is measured by fewer encounters and apprehensions at the border, indicating that illegal attempts to enter the country have been prevented and deterred. Barriers to entry are policed by a range of physical infrastructure like fences, vehicle barriers, and other blockades designed to stop illegal foot and vehicle traffic. These measures are supported by camera- and thermal-based surveillance systems as well as measures like deportation and criminal charges which impose legal consequences on migrants. The focus of Prevention Through Deterrence operations themselves is twofold: establishing control of high-traffic border sectors and using security measures to enable the seizure of contraband.

Keep ReadingShow less
A microphone in the foreground and a crowd, blurry in the background.

INC ‘26 gathered independent leaders in D.C. to unveil a seven-candidate slate, a Fulcrum Caucus strategy and new tools for corruption-free governance.

Getty Images, uschools

Independent Movement Unites at INC ’26 to Build National Power

From September 23–25, leaders from across the American independent political movement gathered at the JW Marriott in Washington, D.C., for the fourth Independent National Convention (INC ’26). Produced by United Independents, the event brought together hundreds of participants representing political reform organizations, independent campaigns, alternative parties, civic initiatives and grassroots organizing efforts.

The gathering reflected the breadth of activity outside the traditional two-party system while addressing a persistent challenge: translating America's large independent constituency into greater political representation, institutional capacity, and coordinated action.

Keep ReadingShow less
Meeting, handshake and business people with deal in office for funding approval and success.

Four Reds and four Blues reached unanimous Points of Agreement on immigration, then presented them to Reps. Fitzpatrick and Suozzi. Here’s how it worked.

Jacob Wackerhausen/Getty Images

On Immigration, Common Ground May Be Closer Than We Think

Immigration has become one of the issues pulling Americans apart. Earlier this month, at a constituent conversation in Bristol, Pennsylvania, I watched eight Americans with very different political views offer a glimpse of how it does not have to stay that way.

Four “Reds” and four “Blues” — terms used for participants on the political right and left — sat across from Reps. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.) and Tom Suozzi (D-N.Y.), the Republican and Democratic co-chairs of the House Problem Solvers Caucus, to present something increasingly unusual in our politics: unanimous Points of Agreement on immigration developed through an earlier Common Ground Workshop.

Keep ReadingShow less