US voting rights

Subterms

    Latest story

    188 Shares38 Views

    Sixty years after the Voting Rights Act, our voices are being eroded | Al Sharpton

    by

    In a moment when we should be celebrating one of the most important pieces of legislation in American history, we are in fact at a worse place as a nation than when it was passed. Those of us fighting to protect the right to vote find ourselves against a movement that doesn’t want to take us back to 1965. They want to create an America that more closely resembles the one of 1865.Sixty years ago, in a rare and profound act of consensus, Congress passed a law to end the centuries-old rigging of American democracy. Yet today the system is as rigged as ever, with the battered Voting Rights Act on life support.The erosion of our rights is playing out before our eyes. Purged voting rolls have helped to install a regime that arrests undocumented people and American citizens alike. A loss of faith in the system led many people to stay at home on election day; now they live in fear of walking outside their door. Empowering states to create restrictive laws has yielded less access to not only the right to vote, but to healthcare, jobs and home ownership.At the center of this is Donald Trump – a man whose legacy as president is marked by rampant voter disenfranchisement. This is a man whose claim to fame is fame itself, who views voting as nothing more than a popularity contest that he’s terrified to lose. It’s why he questioned the integrity of our democratic network in 2020 instead of graciously accepting that 7 million more Americans preferred Joe Biden over him.Trump’s campaign against voting rights marches on, as he fills the courts with judges who will continue to kill civil rights through a thousand cuts. Barriers to voting and the silence of those still able to cast ballots has emboldened and empowered him to bully media conglomerates into complacency and corporations into abandoning diversity, equity and inclusion efforts. Free of fear from the voters, Trump has gone full bore in desecrating the legacy of the civil rights movement – going so far as to use government files on Dr Martin Luther King Jr to distract from his own political headaches.But we cannot in this moment forget the power King saw in the right to vote. In his 1957 Give Us the Ballot speech at the Lincoln Memorial, King declared to 25,000 people that with the vote: “We will no longer have to worry the federal government about our basic rights.”Yet today that fear persists, perhaps stronger than ever. We have indeed come full circle from March 1965, when the nation was rattled by the images of a young John Lewis and dozens of peaceful protesters getting their heads cracked open and their organs bruised on the Edmund Pettus Bridge. The national outrage of Bloody Sunday that sparked mobilization toward passage of the Voting Rights Act has been replaced by a numbness to Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids, the arrests of elected officials and the snipping of social safety nets.The solution to it all remains the right to vote. A week after the brutal beatings in Selma, King declared voting “Civil Right No. 1” in the New York Times. He called it the “foundation stone for political action”, one we must build upon today. Within five months, Congress bravely voted to end racist literacy tests, enable federal examiners to protect voter registration, and fight the ugliest forms of voter suppression.America was stronger for a generation, until the election of her first Black president sparked a conservative backlash that is today at its peak. The opening salvo came in 2013, when the supreme court gutted the law’s core federal pre-clearance provisions in Shelby county v Holder. It chipped away more eight years later, giving states further authority to enforce stricter voter ID laws, purge voter rolls, and reverse early and absentee programs meant to expand access to the polls. In short, Shelby v Holder opened the door for a manicured version of Jim Crow.It is for these reasons that we will lead a March on Wall Street later this month. The 28 August demonstration, held on the anniversary of the March on Washington, will send a message to Trump and his Maga allies in Congress. You may restrict our ability to vote in the president, the senators and the Congress members we support. But you cannot restrict how we vote with our dollars. Black voters have a skyrocketing buying power expected to hit $1.7tn by 2030. We must use it to make sure those we support stand by us.Until we get to a day when the integrity of voting is restored, when we can finally pass the John R Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, we will use the power we have. Trump may use the bully pulpit of the White House to influence companies’ investments in Black America, but we have the ability to hit their bottom line.Celebrating this anniversary of the Voting Rights Act means honoring the sacrifices of those who shed their blood and laid down their lives for our most fundamental freedom and recommitting ourselves to the struggle by tapping into the unwavering hope and persistence that fueled the civil rights movement. To settle for anything less would be unconditional surrender to the segregationists against whom King, congressman Lewis, Fannie Lou Hamer and the other great civil rights leaders stood.

    Rev Al Sharpton is an American Baptist minister, civil rights activist and radio talkshow host More

    More stories

    • 175 Shares56 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘Latinos deserve a district’: alarm as new Texas maps dilute voting power in Austin

      by

      When representative Greg Casar won his election last year, he became the first Latino to represent the Texas capital city of Austin in the US House of Representatives. A panel of federal judges had drawn his district’s lines after a prolonged legal battle over racial gerrymandering.But under the map Texas Republicans unveiled last week, Casar would instead live in the modified version of his neighboring district to the west, which would swallow east Austin – a gentrifying but historically working-class area home to Mexican American and Black residents once forced by segregation laws to live on the east side of town.“Even a conservative supreme court said central Texas Latinos deserve a district, and that’s why my district exists,” Casar said. “If Donald Trump is able to suppress Latino voters here in Austin, he’ll try to spread that plan across America.”Texas Republicans took the unusual step of redistricting several years early in an attempt to deliver more congressional seats to Donald Trump ahead of next year’s midterm elections. Democratic state lawmakers fled the state Sunday to try to thwart the GOP redistricting plan by denying state lawmakers a quorum needed to pass it into law. The Texas governor, Greg Abbott, said Monday he would seek to arrest and possibly unseat and replace Democratic lawmakers who do not return.In majority-minority Texas, where Black and brown voters have traditionally leaned left, the overtly political ploy is teeing up another in a series of legal battles over racial gerrymandering that have erupted repeatedly for more than a decade.The dramatic reshaping of Casar’s district 35 is one of the most egregious examples cited by civic groups concerned that the new map will dilute Latino voter strength and make it harder for candidates of color to win congressional elections.“The map as proposed clearly violates the Voting Rights Act and is unconstitutional,” said Lydia Camarillo, the president of the Southwest Voter Registration Education Project. “It’s canceling out districts that are part of the Voting Rights Act … and it’s not giving Latinos the right to represent their voice based on their population growth.”Hispanics are the largest population segment in Texas, at about 40%. Only one-fifth of the state’s 38-member House delegation is Hispanic, however.Since the last census, civic groups like Camarillo’s have contended that the state’s booming Hispanic population growth merits two more Latino-majority congressional districts under the Voting Rights Act – one in Houston and the other in the Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan area. A dozen organizations and several individuals are pressing Texas to create the two Latino-majority districts in an ongoing federal lawsuit in El Paso.The new GOP-drawn map not only fails to provide those two Latino-majority districts, but it significantly dilutes the voting strength of the ones that exist, critics say.“This is a calculated move that exploits Texas’ historically low voter turnout for those in charge to maintain power,” Jackie Bastard, the executive director of the voter turnout group Jolt Action, wrote in an email. “By deliberately diluting Latino voting strength across districts, these maps would severely diminish the impact of our ongoing voter mobilization efforts and silence the voices of Texas’ fastest-growing demographic.”Those intricacies are often difficult to tease out. Congressional district nine, represented by Democratic representative Al Green, for example, is a so-called “coalition district” under the current map, with no one ethnic or racial group holding a solid majority. In practice, however, it functions more like a Black-opportunity district in a state where African American voters are becoming a smaller share of the electorate.Under the new map, district nine’s Black population plummets to 11%, while the Hispanic voting age population now holds a majority.But the historically low voter turnout rate there raises doubts that the district will actually function as a Latino-majority district, said Gloria Leal, the general counsel for the League of United Latin American Citizens, one of the plaintiffs in the El Paso case. Representative Sylvia Garcia’s district 29 also dropped enough to raise concerns, while retaining a majority on paper.Representative Henry Cuellar’s district 28, on the other hand, saw the opposite approach under the new map – Hispanics voters shot up to roughly 90% of the voting age population.“They added like 20 percentage points to that district to pack us all in,” Leal said. “We oppose the current map that exists and we adamantly oppose the proposed map,” she added.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionAny redrawing of Texas districts is likely to draw the scrutiny of the federal courts, given the state’s long history of voter suppression. The Voting Rights Act, which will celebrate its 60th anniversary on Wednesday, prohibits both diluting a protected groups’ votes across multiple districts and packing voters into a single one.Carrying out such sweeping changes so quickly at the request of the White House may also raise legal questions that go beyond the Voting Rights Act, according to Thomas A Saenz, president and general counsel of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, which is representing the plaintiffs in the El Paso case.“This is clearly improper,” Saenz said. “Trying to circumvent judicial review by acting so close to an election is straight-up unlawful.”Political analysts had widely viewed Republicans’ goal of finding five congressional seats for Trump as an overly ambitious one that may backfire. The map that Republicans came up with in 2021 to fortify their current lopsided majority in the congressional delegation appeared hard to alter without making the party more vulnerable to Democratic challenges.Texas conservatives appear to have exceeded those expectations, according to Rice University political scientist Mark Jones – partly by “riding roughshod” over the Voting Rights Act.“I underestimated the level of disregard of the Voting Rights Act,” Jones said. “It’s not clear how the Voting Rights Act constrained this map in any significant way, with the exception that Republicans focused on hitting absolute majorities of Hispanics in a few districts.”Still, Jones said, Republicans drew the map with an exceptionally favorable year in mind. If Republicans fail to consolidate the inroads they made in last year’s election, which is normal during a midterm, the new map could easily fail to produce a single new GOP congressional seat in Texas. It might even lead Republicans to lose a seat, according to Jones.“One thing that is very clear about this whole process is these maps are being drawn under a very rosy scenario,” Jones said. “And with Trump not on the ballot, with the natural referendum on his presidency, an economy that may be problematic – it’s tough to imagine Republicans hitting 2024 numbers in 2026.” More

    • 113 Shares28 Views

      in US Politics

      Texas House reconvenes without quorum as Democrats flee state

      by

      Texas Democrats in the state legislature denied its speaker a legislative quorum Monday by leaving the state, forestalling plans proposed by the White House to redistrict Texas’s congressional lines to more greatly favor Republicans.When the legislature gaveled in at 3pm local time on Monday, Republicans fell short of a quorum by eight votes after Democrats fled to Illinois, a legislative conference in Boston, New York and elsewhere.In an extraordinary escalation, the state’s Republican governor, Greg Abbott, said he he had ordered the Texas department of public safety to “locate, arrest and return to the House chamber any member who has abandoned their duty to Texans”.“There are consequences for dereliction of duty,” Abbott said in a statement on Monday, after the Republican-dominated House issued civil arrest warrants in an attempt to compel the return of the members who fled. “This order will remain in effect until all missing Democrat House members are accounted for and brought to the Texas Capitol.”Democrats hold 62 of the 150 seats in the legislature’s lower chamber, so as long as at least 51 members remain out of Austin, the Texas legislature cannot move forward with any votes, including a plan to redraw the state’s congressional maps to give Republicans five more seats in Congress.The Texas speaker, Representative Dustin Burrows, adjourned the house until 1pm on Tuesday after issuing a call for absent lawmakers and threatening their arrest. He cited pending legislation on flood relief and human trafficking – and not the contentious redistricting proposal before the chamber – in his call for Democrats to return.“Instead of confronting those challenges, some of our colleagues have fled the state in their duty,” Burrows said. “They’ve left the state, abandoned their posts and turned their backs on the constituents they swore to represent. They’ve shirked their responsibilities under the direction and pressure of out-of-state politicians and activists who don’t know the first thing about what’s right for Texas.”Texas attorney general Ken Paxton, who fled his own impeachment hearings and refused a court order to release his travel records after speaking at the rally in Washington that preceded the January 6 insurrection, has described wayward Democratic legislators as “cowards”.Speaker Burrows said the house would not sit quietly. “While you obstruct the work of the people, the people of Texas are watching and so is the nation, and if you choose to continue down this road, you should know there will be consequences.”The Texas House Democratic Caucus said in response: “Come and take it.”“We are not fighting for the Democratic party,” state representative James Tallarico said in a video message recorded at an airport. “We are fighting for the democratic process, and the stakes could not be higher. We have to take a stand.”Most of the Democratic caucus absconded to Chicago, a city with a Democratic mayor and city council in a state with a Democratic governor and legislature.Illinois governor JB Pritzker, who owns the Chicago Hyatt hotel, announced on Monday he would provide free rooms to the Texas Democrats for as long as they are out of state.A special session of the Texas legislature lasts for 30 days, but Abbott can renew the call for a special session at will. Under new rules the Texas house adopted in 2021, each lawmaker will be fined $500 a day for each day they abscond from the state. More

    • 138 Shares92 Views

      in US Politics

      Gavin Newsom may call special election to redraw California congressional maps

      by

      California’s governor, Gavin Newsom, may call a special election in November to begin the process of redrawing the state’s congressional maps in response to Texas’s plans to change its own maps to help Republicans keep their majority in the House of Representatives.Donald Trump is pushing Texas and other Republican-dominated states to carry out mid-decade redistricting that will favor the GOP and potentially stop Democrats from retaking control of the House in next year’s midterm elections. Governors in Democratic-led states have responded by warning they will move to redo their own maps if Texas goes ahead with its plans, which could create an additional five Republican-leaning districts.California is viewed as the best opportunity for Democrats to pick up seats through gerrymandering, but voters will first have to approve changes to an independent redistricting commission that was given the power to draw congressional districts in 2010.Speaking at a Thursday press conference, Newsom said “a special election would be called, likely to be the first week of November” to approve the changes.“We will go to the people of this state in a transparent way and ask them to consider the new circumstances, to consider these new realities,” the governor added.The party out of power typically regains control of the House in a president’s first midterm election, as the Republicans did under Joe Biden in 2022 and Barack Obama in 2010, and Democrats did during Trump’s first term in 2018.Newsom argued that another two years of unified Republican control of Congress would be especially harmful for California, noting that Los Angeles residents were still waiting for lawmakers to approve aid from the wildfires that ravaged the region earlier this year.“They’re doing a midterm rejection of objectivity and independence, an act that we could criticize from the sideline, or an act that we can respond to in kind – fight fire with fire,” Newsom said.While Republicans could gain the most seats by redrawing Texas’s maps, Ohio, another red state, must also redraw its maps before next year’s election, and there’s talk of redistricting to the GOP’s advantage in Missouri and Indiana.Democrats are seen as having a more difficult path to improving their odds of winning the House majority through redistricting, often due to their states’ embrace of independent commissions intended to draw fair congressional amps.Voters created the California citizens redistricting commission in 2008 to draw its legislative maps, and in 2010 expanded its powers to congressional districts. Newsom said, “We’re not here to eliminate the commission,” but rather to respond to what he described as “the rigging of the system by the president of the United States.“And it won’t just happen in Texas. I imagine he’s making similar calls all across this country. It’s a big deal. I don’t think it gets much bigger,” Newsom said. More

    • 138 Shares101 Views

      in US Politics

      Texas Republicans unveil congressional map that could gift them five seats

      by

      Republicans have unveiled a new congressional map in Texas that would allow the party to pick up as many as five additional congressional seats, an aggressive maneuver that has already met decisive outcry from Democrats and comes as the GOP tries to stave off losses in next year’s midterm elections.Republicans already hold 25 of Texas’s 38 congressional seats. But at the urging of Donald Trump, Texas’s governor, Greg Abbott, called a special session this month to redraw the state’s congressional districts. After contentious hearings across the state, Republicans unveiled their proposed map on Wednesday.“We expected them to be greedy,” said Sam Gostomski, executive director of the Texas Democratic party. “The bottom line is, they are going to turn Texas into almost certainly the most gerrymandered state in the country.”Had the map been in place for the 2024 election, Trump would have carried 30 of the districts, while Kamala Harris would have carried just eight, according to data from Dave’s Redistricting App, an online tool that allows for analysis of voting districts.On first glance at the maps, “it was more packing and more trying to divide people,” said state representative Barbara Gervin-Hawkins, a Democrat from San Antonio and a member of the Texas house’s redistricting committee. “We’re trying to digest it and look at it and look at the numbers and see how it all plays out.”Republican legislators held three hearings to hear from voters about redistricting. But the proposed maps were not presented at the meetings, rendering the legally required hearings into a pro forma exercise.“How do people even know what to comment on if the maps aren’t published?” she said. “I call it a sneak attack to put the maps out after the hearing.”The map unveiled on Wednesday represents the most aggressive effort for Republicans. While analysts said Republicans could target three Democratic seats easily, trying to claim more risked spreading GOP voters too thin.One of the proposed changes in the maps would consolidate two Democratic seats in Austin, currently held by Representatives Greg Casar and Lloyd Doggett. Other changes include shifting boundaries of districts in south Texas, where Republicans have made inroads among Hispanic voters.“Merging the 35th and the 37th districts is illegal voter suppression of Black and Latino Central Texans,” Casar said in a statement. “If Trump is allowed to rip the Voting Rights Act to shreds here in Central Texas, his ploy will spread like wildfire across the country. Everyone who cares about our democracy must mobilize against this illegal map.”The map also radically redraws district lines in Houston, eliminating one majority people of color seat held by Democrats.“The map is extreme invidious discrimination and accomplishes what the President has demanded of the governor and more,” said Al Green, a member of the US Congress. “The DoJ demanded that the race card be played, and the governor dealt the people of Texas a racist hand.”Green pledged to run for re-election, despite the changes in district boundaries.Democrats narrowly won two seats in south Texas where a majority of voters also chose Trump. The redistricting widens the margin a Republican congressional candidate might expect to win, given the 2024 result.Democrats have already denounced the Republican efforts as a naked partisan power grab and have contemplated redrawing maps in states where they hold the power to do so. A Super Pac supporting House Democrats has pledged to donate upwards of $20m to target Republicans.The redistricting process in states typically occurs at the start of each new decade, when new census data is available.“This proposed map is a racially discriminatory, brazen power grab. It is an insult to all Texans, who have demonstrated overwhelming, bipartisan opposition to President Trump’s order to draw a mid-decade gerrymander. Texans deserve better than this, and if the legislature and the governor follow through with enacting this egregious gerrymander, it will face fierce legal challenges,” said Marina Jenkins, executive director of the National Redistricting Foundation, which has opposed the Texas effort.Democrats have few options to fight the redistricting. While a court challenge will be filed almost immediately, federal judges in the conservative fifth judicial circuit may not resolve the dispute before the 2026 election, and may not resolve it in their favor.The Texas house select committee on redistricting has scheduled a public hearing on the proposed maps for Friday. The Texas AFL-CIO put out a call on Wednesday afternoon to pack the capitol in Austin and testify.Democratic legislators may leave the state in order to deny Republicans a legislative quorum and prevent them from passing law. Doing so presents practical and legal costs for those who do, but may be the last remaining bargaining chip they have before the issue enters the courts.“I can tell you that our members are going to fight it for as long as it takes,” Gostomski said, “but at the end of the day, the only real legal mechanism in place is, at some point, the GOP leadership has to decide if they are more interested in representing their constituents than protecting Donald Trump’s power.” More

    • 150 Shares93 Views

      in US Politics

      Justice department asked California to give details of non-citizens on voter rolls

      by

      The Department of Justice has asked several large California counties to provide detailed personal information of non-citizens who got on to the state voter rolls, an unusual request that comes as the Trump administration has asked about a dozen states to provide wide swaths of information about voters and election practices.The justice department’s voting section sent identical letters to local election officials in Los Angeles, San Francisco and San Diego on 9 July. The request asks the officials to provide the total number of non-citizens who had their voter registrations cancelled since 2020 as well as a copy of their voter registration records, voting history, date of birth, driver’s license numbers, and the last four digits of a social security number. The department sent a similar request to Orange county last month and then sued the county after officials redacted some information.“It’s deeply troubling,” said David Becker, the executive director for the Center for Election Innovation & Research. “It reflects a pretty shocking misunderstanding of federal law regarding list maintenance.”The request for information on non-citizens comes as the Trump administration has arrested and moved to deport thousands of immigrants. Submitting a voter registration form while ineligible to vote is a crime so non-citizens that do so could be prosecuted and potentially deported. This kind of voter fraud, however, is extremely rare.All three counties said they were reviewing the justice department’s request. The justice department did not return a request for comment.The justice department’s voting section has sent out extensive requests for information to nearly a dozen states recently, many of them focused on how states are removing people from the rolls and suggesting that states are not doing enough to cancel voter registrations of people who are ineligible to cast a ballot. It has also asked many states to turn over all of their voter registration records. At least two states, New Hampshire and Minnesota, have refused so far. “The Department of Justice did not, however, identify any legal basis in its June 25 letter that would entitle it to Minnesota’s voter registration list. Nor did it explain how this information would be used, stored, and secured,” a lawyer for the Minnesota secretary of state’s office wrote on 25 July.It is a focus that underscores how the justice department’s voting section is shifting away from enforcing anti-discrimination in voting laws and instead hunting for voter fraud.“For years now, we’ve seen suits from those conservative groups saying that jurisdictions aren’t purging enough folks from their rolls and claiming that they’ve identified non-citizens on the rolls and that kind of thing. And now we’re seeing the Department of Justice do something very similar,” said Sean Morales-Doyle, director of the voting rights and elections program at the Brennan Center for Justice. “This is a civil rights division and a voting section in particular that are very focused on trying to prove some kind of fraud.”Federal law requires states to regularly check their rolls for people who are ineligible because they have moved or died, with safeguards in place to ensure that eligible voters are not erroneously moved. Republicans have long complained that states are not aggressive enough in removing voters, while Democrats have pointed to errors states have made to justify the continued existence of the safeguards.Trump has often repeated the false claim that non-citizens are voting in significant numbers in US elections, including last month when he said Los Angeles and other Democratic-leaning cities were using “Illegal Aliens to expand their Voter Base” and “cheat in elections”. A provision in Trump’s March executive order on elections instructs the attorney general to prioritize enforcing laws that prevent non-citizen voting. Numerous studies have shown that non-citizen voting is exceedingly rare.“This refocus is troubling in part because it means taking away focus from actually enforcing the legal protections for voting rights that the voting rights section has historically been enforcing,” Morales-Doyle said. “It seems to be investing a bunch of resources in going after a problem that is infinitesimally rare.”There have been isolated instances of non-citizens becoming registered in recent years, but it is often due to confusion about their eligibility. In 2018, for example, a federal prosecutor in North Carolina charged 20 non-citizens with illegally voting and several of them said they had no idea they were ineligible.Last month, election officials in Orange county, California, told the justice department that 17 non-citizens had become registered to vote since 2020. Sixteen of those people self-reported they were non-citizens, according to the Los Angeles Times.The election officials provided the information in June after justice department officials made a similar request to the one submitted to Los Angeles, San Francisco and San Diego. While election officials turned over the names and dates of birth of those who registered, they redacted their social security and driver’s license numbers, citing state privacy laws, the Los Angeles Times reported. When Orange county officials offered to work on a confidentiality agreement under which they could provide the records, justice department responded by suing the county for the records.“These efforts make it clear President Trump is preparing to use the power of his office to interfere in the 2026 election,” said Samantha Tarazi, CEO and co-founder of Voting Rights Lab, a non-profit that is tracking the justice department’s outreach to states. “What started as an unconstitutional executive order – marching orders for state action regardless of its fate in court – has grown into a full federal mobilization to seize power over our elections.To justify its request for records to the California counties, the justice department pointed to two federal laws, the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) and Help America Vote Act (Hava) that set requirements for how states must maintain their voter rolls. Neither statute requires states to continually search for non-citizens on their voter rolls, Becker said.“There is literally nothing in federal law anywhere that requires states to continually search for non-citizens on their voter lists,” he said. “States can do this if they choose to. But the federal government plays absolutely no role in that unless a state affirmatively asks them to.”The justice department cited a provision of the NVRA that requires states to come up with a general program for removing voters from the rolls because they have either died or moved. It also cited a provision of Hava that requires states to have a system for removing ineligible voters from the rolls and not to accept a federal voter registration application unless voters provide a driver’s license number or the last four digits of their social security number.“I don’t understand how having the name and [personal identifying information] of any voter tells you anything about whether a county is or isn’t complying with the NVRA and Hava,” Levitt said. “The civil rights division hasn’t really established a legitimate need for the information they’re demanding. Which means they’re not really entitled to the information.” More

    • 150 Shares119 Views

      in US Politics

      Newsom threatens to redraw California House maps in protest at Texas plan

      by

      Seeking to offset a Republican plan to pick up congressional seats in Texas, California Democrats say they are prepared to redraw the state’s 52 congressional districts in a longshot and controversial effort to pick up Democratic seats.Governor Gavin Newsom, seen as a likely presidential candidate in 2028, has been leading the threat in recent days. And Democratic members of California’s delegation in the US House appear to be on board.“We want our gavels back,” Representative Mark Takano, a California Democrat, told Punchbowl News. “That’s what this is about.” Democrats hold 43 of California’s 52 seats and reportedly believe they can pick up an additional five to seven seats by drawing new maps.Newsom is pushing the plan as Texas Republicans are poised to redraw its 38 congressional districts in a special session that begins next week. Texas’s governor, Greg Abbott, put redistricting on the agenda at the request of Donald Trump, who wants Republicans to add five seats in Texas as he seeks to stave off a loss in congressional seats next year. The effort has been widely criticized by Democrats as an anti-democratic ploy to make Republicans unaccountable to their voters.Newsom’s plan in California is unlikely to succeed. More than a decade ago, California voters approved a constitutional amendment that stripped lawmakers of their ability to draw congressional districts and gave it to an independent redistricting commission. Newsom has only offered vague ideas for how to get around that requirement. He has suggested the legislature could call a quick voter referendum to potentially strip the commission of its power. He also said on Wednesday there was a possibility of the legislature trying to enact new maps on its own – a novel legal theory.“It’s not lawful in any way,” said Dan Vicuña, a redistricting expert at the watchdog group Common Cause. “It was clear that this was meant to be done one time after the census, through a public and transparent process that centers community feedback, and then to be not touched again until the next decade.”He added: “It’s not an invitation to them to circumvent the independent process and gerrymander maps in the middle of a decade. That would completely undermine the purpose of the independent process voters approved.”California’s independent commission has long been considered a model for making the process of drawing district lines fairer. There has been a bipartisan push in recent years to get more states to adopt commissions such as California’s, where ordinary citizens – Democrats, Republicans and unaffiliated – have the power to draw district lines. After the 2020 census, four states – California, Arizona, Michigan and Colorado – used independent commissions. Democrats sought to require all states to use independent redistricting commissions in federal legislation that stalled in the US Senate during Joe Biden’s presidency.Russell Yee, a Republican who served on California’s commission, said that while he understood Newsom’s frustration, the only solution is redistricting reform at the federal level.“To abandon a commitment to fair and equitable election districts for partisan advantage is to sell family treasures at a pawn shop for a wad of quickly spent cash,” he said.Newsom has noted he supported creating the commission, but frames his willingness to redraw maps as the type of hardball Democrats should be more willing to play as Trump and Republicans have openly defied the law.“They’re playing by a different set of rules. They can’t win by the traditional game so they want to change the game,” Newsom said on Wednesday. “We can act holier than thou. We can sit on the sidelines, talk about the way the world should be. Or we can recognize the existential nature that is this moment.”Alex Lee, a state assemblyman who chairs his chamber’s progressive caucus, rejected that argument. “CA independent citizen redistricting (imperfect) is model for the nation,” he wrote in a post on X. “[Republicans] resort to cheating to win. We win by running clear platform for the working class and delivering.”Trying to push through a redrawing of California’s map could also undermine efforts by Democrats to convince voters of the grave dangers of Trump’s attacks on the rule of law. More

    • 163 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      A risky bet? Texas Republicans poised to redraw congressional map on Trump’s orders

      by

      At the behest of Donald Trump, Texas Republicans are poised to redraw their state’s congressional map to try and gain as many as five congressional seats, a move that is likely to further weaken the influence of the state’s fast-growing non-white population and could wind up backfiring on the party.The effort to redraw the map represents a blunt and undemocratic effort by Republican lawmakers to pick the voters who elect them, and comes at a time when many of the party’s positions are unpopular. The US president and national Republicans are making the push because the GOP holds a 220-212 advantage in the US House (there are three Democratic vacancies) and Trump’s party typically loses seats in the midterm elections, which will happen next year.But it’s a risky bet. Twenty-five of Texas’s 38 congressional districts are currently represented by Republicans, a result that was carefully engineered when lawmakers redrew the state’s congressional map in 2021. During that process, mapmakers focused on shoring up Republican seats instead of trying to pick up Democratic ones.In order to pick up new seats, Republicans will have to spread their voters from safe Republican ones into Democratic districts. It could allow them to pick up more seats, but also makes the Republican districts more competitive and potentially winnable by Democrats in a strong year.The number of seats Republicans are able to pick up “depends on how much risk Republicans want to take,” said David Wasserman, an analyst at the Cook Political Report who closely follows US House races. “Republicans could probably target three Democratic seats very easily, but once it gets to four or five, that could put additional Republican seats at risk.”When Republicans drew the existing map, they blunted the political influence of non-white voters in the state, who accounted for 95% of the state’s population growth over the last decade. The new maps could further weaken their ability to elect their preferred candidates.“The current maps are already blatantly racist and discriminate against voters of color, communities of color, all over the state,” said Anthony Gutierrez, the executive director of the Texas chapter of Common Cause, a watchdog group. “There would be absolutely no way you get to five more Republican districts without just completely trampling on minority voting rights.”Two Democratic seats likely to be targeted are the ones in south Texas currently held by representatives Henry Cuellar and Vicente Gonzalez, Wasserman said. Trump won both districts in 2024 and Republicans could easily tweak their boundaries to make them winnable. Democrats also represent four districts in the Houston area, and Republicans could shift the boundaries to try and pick up one or two districts depending on how aggressive they want to be.The Republican push to redraw the map comes as the state is still reeling from deadly floods that left at least 134 people dead with more than 100 people still missing. Democrats in the Texas legislature are reportedly considering walking out of the special session in order to deny Republicans a quorum needed to pass the maps. Ken Paxton, the Texas attorney general, has said he will assist in “hunting down” members who walk out and compel them back to the capitol.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionTo justify redrawing the maps, Texas governor Greg Abbott pointed to a 7 July letter from the justice department claiming lawmakers had impermissibly sorted voters based on their race. Both the letter’s argument, and Abbott’s quick acceptance of it, raised eyebrows because Texas officials have said for years they did not consider race at all when they drew the maps.“My jaw dropped when I saw that letter,” said Mark Gaber, an attorney at the Campaign Legal Center, who is representing some of the plaintiffs suing Texas over the maps already in place. “Either the witnesses were not telling the truth or the entire premise of this special session and the mid-decade redistricting is false.”In its letter, the justice department pointed to four districts where it claimed voters had been unconstitutionally sorted by race. In two of those districts, two different groups of minority voters constitute a majority that can elect their preferred candidates. Another district is majority Hispanic. The final district it raised issue with was drawn after judges found intentional discrimination in a previous district.Several legal experts said those claims were highly questionable.“The DoJ letter is completely concocted and it reflects a complete misunderstanding of the law, but that’s not what they’re interested in,” said Thomas Saenz, president and general counsel of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, which is representing some of the plaintiffs challenging the current congressional map.“If I were them, I would be consulting legal counsel about the possibility of being found guilty of perjury in what they testified to under oath,” he added.Mapmakers may want to keep communities who share common interests together for reasons that have nothing to do with their race, said Michael Li, a redistricting expert at the Brennan Center for Justice.Justin Levitt, a professor at Loyola Law School who worked on voting rights issues at both the justice department and White House said the letter was “nonsense”.“What they appear to articulate in the letters is the notion that any time there happens to be multiple minorities in a district, that’s a constitutional violation. And that’s like seven different versions of wrong,” he said. More

    • 163 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      The other winner in New York’s mayoral contest: ranked-choice voting | David Daley

      by

      The polls did not look good for New York progressives this winter when the Working Families party began making its endorsements for city elections. An early February poll from Emerson College showed Andrew Cuomo with a 23-point lead in a hypothetical Democratic primary matchup. None of the four leading progressives even approached double-digit support – including the then unknown assemblyman Zohran Mamdani. He polled at 1%.In the days before ranked-choice voting, the Working Families party’s endorsement process might have looked quite different. Like-minded candidates would have drawn sharp distinctions between each other. Party officials might have looked to nudge candidates toward the exits, behind closed doors. Before any votes had been cast in the primary, the party would consolidate behind just one choice. It would have been bloody and left a bitter taste for everyone.Instead, the opposite happened. Working Families, knowing that majorities rule and that no one can spoil a ranked-choice race, endorsed four candidates. Instead of a single endorsement that served as a kiss of death for other progressives, they backed a slate, allowing voters time to tune in and for candidates to make their pitches. Now Mamdani is the Democratic nominee and the overwhelming favorite to go from 1% all the way to Gracie Mansion.There are many reasons why this 33-year-old pulled off a seemingly unthinkable upset and soared from obscurity to the most talked about Democrat in the nation overnight. He energized young people, reached voters where they are on social media and built an unstoppable coalition. He and his volunteers talked to everyone, everywhere.Ranked-choice voting (RCV) encouraged and incentivized that joyous, barnstorming approach. And while Mamdani ultimately would have won a plurality contest or a ranked-choice one, his super-long-shot candidacy might have been squelched at the very beginning under the old system with its different electoral incentives. His victory shows how much more real power voters have under ranked-choice voting.To be clear: RCV is a party-neutral and candidate-neutral tool. Its job is to produce a majority winner with the widest and deepest support from any field of more than two candidates. It puts an end to spoilers and to the impossible, wish-and-a-prayer calculation that voters otherwise have to make when faced with multiple candidates, some of whom they really like and some of whom they do not. Liberals, conservatives, independents and moderates have run and won under RCV, from coast to coast.But while RCV might be strictly non-partisan, it is decidedly pro-voter – and almost always produces a more positive, issue-focused campaign that looks to drive up turnout and appeal to as many people as possible. A ranked-choice campaign rewards engagement and encourages coalitions; it’s a race where instead of tearing down opponents, candidates point out areas of agreement and ask to be a voter’s second choice.Voters love RCV and find it easy to use. According to a new SurveyUSA poll of New York voters, 96% said their ballot was easy to fill out. More than three-quarters of voters want to keep or expand RCV. And 82% said they had taken advantage of RCV and ranked at least two candidates. (These numbers are similar across RCV elections, and a powerful rejoinder to critics who insist, despite evidence to the contrary, that it’s too confusing.)A remarkable number of New Yorkers saw first-hand how RCV makes our votes more powerful – they had the freedom to express themselves and rank a long-shot first, but still had their vote count for either Mamdani or Cuomo in the ranked choice tally.Perhaps the high marks are of little surprise: voters received a campaign unlike most any other. The tone remained positive and issue-based. Instead of cutting each other down, candidates lifted each other up: Mamdani and Brad Lander cross-endorsed each other, cutting joint ads, riding bicycles together to shared events, sharing the couch on Stephen Colbert, and even sharing a stage at Mamdani’s victory party. Jessica Ramos and Whitney Tilson endorsed Cuomo and said that they would rank him second. Mamdani helped Adrienne Adams with fundraising.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionVoters always say that they want more choice at the polls, candidates who engage with them, and a genuine, issue-based campaign. They got exactly that in New York City because of ranked choice. And the historic turnout levels – more than 1 million New Yorkers cast ballots, the highest number since the 1980s – shows that when voters get that kind of elevated, engaging campaign, they show up and get involved.When voters have the opportunity to consider new candidates campaigning in creative new ways, the frontrunner with the early name recognition and largest donors can be eclipsed by a newcomer who started at 1%. And instead of going scorched-earth on each other before the general election, even some of the “losers” seem to have had their status elevated: Lander finished third, and instead of being an asterisk, he has now expanded his base and likability for a future campaign.The majority winner in this race was Zohran Mamdani. But it’s also easy to suggest the real winner might be ranked-choice voting. In a moment when so many of our elections are fraught and polarized, all of us looking for a more unified and hopeful path forward – the “politics of the future”, as Mamdani called it when he declared victory – should take a close look at what just happened in New York as proof that stronger elections are truly possible.What’s giving me hope nowOutside of Washington, cities and states are becoming laboratories of democracy once again. New York’s adoption of ranked-choice voting led to just the kind of campaign our politics so desperately needs: a giant field of candidates presenting their vision of the future, building coalitions, without any time squandered on “spoilers” or anyone pushed to drop out and consolidate early. In Portland, Oregon, meanwhile, voters modernized government and moved to proportional representation to elect the city council, broadening representation to groups and neighborhoods that have never before had a seat at the table. When voters make these changes, they like them, defend them, and expand them, as we have seen in New York, Maine and Alaska. And it won’t take long for people to ask why they can’t have ranked choice and proportionality in all their elections.

      David Daley is the author of Antidemocratic: Inside the Right’s 50-Year Plot to Control American Elections as well as Ratf**ked: Why Your Vote Doesn’t Count More