Podcasts about partisan gerrymandering

In this episode of Passing Judgment, Jessica examines a pivotal voting rights case before the Supreme Court concerning Louisiana's congressional district lines. The case touches on the conflict between the Voting Rights Act and the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. Jessica reviews the legal arguments, reflects on past decisions like Shelby County, and explores the case's broader implications. Here are three key takeaways you don't want to miss:Voting Rights Act and Supreme Court Case: Jessica Levinson delves into a Supreme Court case concerning the Voting Rights Act, highlighting a challenge over Louisiana's congressional districting. The essential question is whether the state violated the Act by diluting voting power or violated the Fourteenth Amendment by using race excessively in district creation.Louisiana District Lines Controversy: After the census, Louisiana's district lines came under scrutiny for having only one majority minority district, leading to lawsuits. The state later redrew the map to include two majority minority districts, sparking a new suit from non-African American voters claiming the excessive use of race in drawing these lines.Fourteenth Amendment and Equal Protection Clause: The tension between complying with the Voting Rights Act and the constraints of the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause is a major theme. The conversation touches on recent affirmative action cases, emphasizing the court's perspective that race should not be the predominant factor.Follow Our Host and Guest: @LevinsonJessica

The American Democracy Minute Radio Report & Podcast for March 7, 2025North Carolina: Former Election Directors Weigh In On Unresolved Supreme Court Race; Former Justice Argues Partisan Gerrymandering Akin to ‘Stuffing the Ballot Box'In a brief to the North Carolina Court of Appeals, a bipartisan group of former county election directors urged the court to reject a claim that as many as 65,000 voters were ineligible last November.  And a former state supreme court justice is arguing in another appeals case that gerrymandering by the state legislature is akin to ‘stuffing the ballot box.” Some podcasting platforms strip out our links.  To read our resources and see the whole script of today's report, please go to our website at https://AmericanDemocracyMinute.orgToday's LinksArticles & Resources:American Democracy Minute - Appeals Continue in 2024 NC Supreme Court Race ChallengeNC Newsline - NC Supreme Court rejects requests to have GOP Judge Griffin's case skip appeals courtNC Newsline - (Commentary) Documenting the damage of Judge Jefferson Griffin's Supreme Court election challengeNorth Carolina Court of Appeals - Brief by Bipartisan Group of 42 Former County Election DirectorsNews & Observer - Bob Orr pushes NC courts to answer an essential question: Do we have a right to fair elections? | OpinionGroups Taking Action:Democracy North Carolina, ACLU NC, League of Women Voters NCRegister or Check Your Voter Registration:U.S. Election Assistance Commission – Register And Vote in Your StatePlease follow us on Facebook and Bluesky Social, and SHARE! Find all of our reports at AmericanDemocracyMinute.orgWant ADM sent to your email?  Sign up here!Are you a radio station?  Find our broadcast files at Pacifica Radio Network's Audioport and PRX#Democracy  #DemocracyNews #NorthCarolina #FairMaps #EndGerrymandering

The Supreme Court issued a ruling that will allow a gerrymander in South Carolina to stand, on the basis that it was done for partisan, not racial, reasons. On Today's Show:Ari Berman, voting rights correspondent for Mother Jones and author of Minority Rule: The Right-Wing Attack on the Will of the People—and the Fight to Resist It (Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2024), explains how this will affect voters in South Carolina and beyond, and explains the larger voting rights context of the decision.

In this episode, Kyle and Carah talk with Crystal Ball Senior Columnist Louis Jacobson about his new analysis on "excess seats" in state legislatures as well as House Republicans' recently-announced impeachment inquiry into President Biden, his journalism career with PolitiFact, and much more.  Louis Jacobson is the senior correspondent with PolitiFact. Previously, he served as deputy editor of Roll Call and as founding editor of its legislative wire service, CongressNow. Earlier, he spent more than a decade covering politics, policy, Congress and lobbying for National Journal magazine. He is senior author of the 2016, 2018, 2020, 2022, and 2024 editions of The Almanac of American Politics.  Links in this episode:  Politifact articles by Louis Jacobson The Republicans' 'Excess Seat' Edge in State Legislatures  The Almanac of American Politics

There is no political topic that can get people's blood boiling quite like partisan gerrymandering. Many even go so far as to call it an afront to our democracy. But what do we know about how effective it is and what the data shows about its outcomes?In a new paper, “Widespread Partisan Gerrymandering Mostly Cancels Nationally, But Reduces Electoral Competition” Princeton political scientist, Kosuke Imai, uses a novel methodological approach to try and document the effect of partisan gerrymandering. What he finds is surprising and may lead people who participate in it to re-think whether it's worth the effort.Link to paper: https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2217322120

 The American Democracy Minute Radio Report & Podcast for Aug. 28, 2023 New Mexico Redistricting Case One of the First to Employ a Partisan Gerrymandering Test Proposed by U.S. Supreme Court's Justice Kagan An unusual New Mexico redistricting case reaches a state district court next month.  Unusual in that it's Republicans claiming that Democrats did the partisan gerrymandering, but also that it will be one of the first cases to employ a partisan gerrymandering test suggested by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan.  Today's LinksArticles & Resources:Democracy Docket - New Mexico Congressional Redistricting ChallengeU.S. Supreme Court - Common Cause v. RuchoNM Political Report - Gerrymandering case will move forwardDemocracy Docket - New Mexico Supreme Court Rules That State Courts Can Review Partisan Gerrymandering Claims NM Political Report - Watchdog groups file brief in congressional gerrymandering caseNM 5th Judicial Distict Court - Brief by Election Reformers Network, Common Cause New Mexico, and the League of Women Voters New Mexico SEAN P. TRENDE  - Amicus brief by redistricting legal expertGroups Taking Action:Election Reformers Network, Common Cause New Mexico, and the League of Women Voters New Mexico ===Please follow us on Facebook and Twitter and SHARE!  Find all of our reports at AmericanDemocracyMinute.orgWant ADM sent to your email?  Sign up here!#Democracy  #DemocracyNews #FairMaps #StopGerrymandering 

The coverage of the Moore v. Harper Supreme Court case has primarily focused on its implications for partisan gerrymandering. But the ruling also has significant implications for racial gerrymandering. Mitchell D. Brown, Senior Counsel for the Voting Rights Section of the Southern Coalition for Social Justice, one of the organizations involved in Moore v. Harper, joins us to discuss why checks and balances on state legislative activity are critical to safeguarding the rights of Black voters.  Links in this episode:  Moore v. Harper  Shelby v. Holder Gonidakis v. Ohio Redistricting Commission Allen v. Milligan Brooks v. Abbott  Stephenson v. Bartlett  The Purcell Principle:  An Explainer from Democracy Docket

On this show, we discuss the expected impact of recent Voting Rights and Political Participation decisions recently decided by the North Carolina Supreme Court, including Harper v. Hall, with guests Marcus Bass, Executive Director of Advance North Carolina & Deputy Director of NC Black Alliance, and Jeff Loperfido, Interim Chief Counsel of Voting Rights for the Southern Coalition for Social Justice.

Independent, investigative news, reporting, interviews and commentary

Independent, investigative news, reporting, interviews and commentary

Independent, investigative news, reporting, interviews and commentary

Welcome back to Carolina Democracy. Today we're joined by State Senator Michael Garrett of Guilford County to discuss why voters should trust and support Democrats at the polls, the renewed culture wars in Raleigh, and the State Supreme Court's open assault on democracy. Plus, a few other updates since our last episode.Resources:AP News, "N. Carolina Justices Hand GOP Big Wins With Election Rulings"N.Y. Times, "North Carolina Gerrymander Ruling Reflects Politicization of Judiciary Nationally"Politico, "North Carolina Supreme Court Clears Way for Partisan Gerrymandering"Cardinal & Pine, "NC Supreme Court OKs Partisan Gerrymandering and Voter ID Laws"Court Opinions:GerrymanderingPhoto IDVoter DisenfranchisementContact Us: jd@carolinademocracy.comFollow Us:Facebook: @CarolinaDemocracyInstagram: @carolinademocracy

Last week, the North Carolina Supreme Court agreed to re-hear a case that found the state's redistricting maps unconstitutional under the state's constitution. The outcome of this decision could affect another case already before the U.S. Supreme Court, Moore v. Harper—a challenge to a decision striking down North Carolina's redistricting that involves the “independent state legislature” doctrine. Why did the North Carolina Supreme Court strike down the maps in the first place, and why is it revisiting that decision now? Will the U.S. Supreme Court still decide the Moore case and rule on the independent state legislature theory? And what standards should be used to decide whether redistricting maps are politically gerrymandered? To discuss these questions and address the latest developments in these crucial gerrymandering cases, Misha Tseytlin of the law firm Troutman Pepper and Guy-Uriel Charles of Harvard Law School join host Jeffrey Rosen.  Resources   Moore v. Harper, (oral argument: video via C-SPAN; transcript) Amicus Brief by Misha Tsyetlin filed on behalf group of New York Voters, Moore v. Harper  Amicus Brief by Misha Tsyetlin filed on behalf of members of Congress from the North Carolina delegation, Rucho v. Common Cause  Amicus Brief by Guy-Uriel Charles and Deepak Gupta on behalf of Mathematicians, Students and Professors, Rucho v. Common Cause Gill v. Whitford (2018) Rucho v. Common Cause (2019)  Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.    Continue today's conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr.    Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.    You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library. 

The post State Senator Natalie Murdock discusses the destructive impact of partisan gerrymandering, the desire of many voters to protect abortion rights, and what issues may dominate the 2023 legislative session. appeared first on NC Policy Watch.

Democrats have two months before they lose control of the House. It's absolutely essential that they do everything possible to stop the cancer of "big money" and "dark money" in our politics. A small number of rightwing billionaires today run the show, at least for the moment, and, according to a new study, 27 of them basically own the GOP and thus the ability to block most positive and forward action by the Biden administration.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

David Daley reports that voters repudiated the GOP congressional agenda, but court-sanctioned gerrymanders made sure it didn't matter.

Audio of Justice Kagan's dissenting opinion in Rucho v. Common Cause (2019). Last episode, I read the 2019 majority opinion Rucho v. Common Cause - a case in which a three-judge District Court ruled that North Carolina's 2016 congressional district map was the product of Republican-directed partisan gerrymandering, enjoining the state from using the map after November 2018. North Carolina Republicans appealed the decision to the Supreme Court. The Court consolidated Rucho with a very similar gerrymandering case out of Maryland - only that case was at the direction of Democrats. In the 5-4 majority opinion, split along their own ideological and partisan lines, the majority held that partisan gerrymandering claims are not justiciable because they present a political question beyond the reach of the federal courts. Today I'll be reading the dissenting opinion in this Supreme Court case which held that - not only is partisan gerrymandering within the Court's reach - ignoring it ultimately robs Americans of their most fundamental constitutional rights: the rights to participate equally in the political process and to choose their political representatives - not the other way around.   Access this SCOTUS opinion and other essential case information here.   Music by Epidemic Sound.

Audio of the 2019 opinion of the Supreme Court in Rucho v. Common Cause. A three-judge District Court ruled that North Carolina's 2016 congressional district map was the product of partisan gerrymandering, enjoining the state from using the map after November 2018. North Carolina Republicans appealed the decision to the Supreme Court. In a 5-4 opinion, split along their own ideological and partisan lines, the court held that partisan gerrymandering claims are not justiciable because they present a political question beyond the reach of the federal courts. However, the majority opinion is 34 pages long - which seems like an awfully long reach for an argument that is beyond their reach. A significant portion of these pages seem to argue that partisan gerrymandering is simply the way it is in American politics and that, unless such gerrymandering is racial and in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, it's all just part of the game. Now, that's a lot of arguing against a claim that the majority holds is simply none of their business. In the next episode I'll be reading the dissenting opinion in this case in which the minority called-out the Court for ignoring the opportunity to address a critical question involving the violation of “the most fundamental of . . . constitutional rights: the rights to participate equally in the political process."   Access this SCOTUS opinion and other essential case information here.   Music by Epidemic Sound.  

Sitting in for Thom Hartmann, guest host Jefferson Smith is joined by former Chair of the Ohio Democratic Party, and author of Laboratories of Autocracy, David Pepper. Are our state houses becoming incapacitated by the invasion of white supremacists and right-wing extremists? See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Ohio Supreme Court Rejects Another GOP Congressional District Map for Partisan GerrymanderingToday's LinksArticles:Associated Press - Ohio Supreme Court scraps 2nd GOP-drawn congressional mapColumbus Dispatch - Redistricting: Ohio Supreme Court rejects congressional map used in May, orders new oneCleveland.com  - Ohio Supreme Court again rejects Republican congressional map, ordering redraw for 2024 electionGroups Taking Action:   League of Women Voters OH,  Fair Districts OH, Ohio Voter Rights CoalitionYou're listening to the American Democracy Minute, keeping YOUR government by and for the people. We're headed back to Ohio today, where on July 19, the Ohio Supreme Court rejected another set of GOP-drawn Congressional district maps because they were gerrymandered for partisan gain. You'll remember that Ohio's legislature had thrown up its hands and resubmitted a map previously rejected by the Ohio Supreme Court.  The state was under pressure to get the maps in place for the Ohio primary on August 2nd, but now whatever maps are agreed upon will not be in force until 2024. The Associated Press reports that the rejected map created 10 safe Republican seats and five Democratic seats. However, the high court's majority said the latest map “packed” surrounding Democrats in three of the Democratic-leaning congressional districts, which diluted the Democratic voting power and strengthened Republican power around heavily-Democratic Cleveland, Cincinnati and Columbus. The 4-3 decision by the Ohio high court cited the 2018 state constitutional amendment prohibiting partisan gerrymandering.   GOP legislative leaders had said the rejected map was the best they could do, but the court included a fair model map in their opinion giving a representative share of seats to both parties. The court gives the legislature 30 days from July 19th to come back with a fair map.  If the legislature fails, it returns to Ohio's redistricting commission. Read the AP story and get connected with the groups taking action at AmericanDemocracyMinute.org.  Granny D said Democracy is not something we have, it's something we DO.   For the American Democracy Minute, I'm Brian Beihl.

For a long time, redistricting has admittedly been an issue that appeals to only the wonkiest among us. But given the hyperpartisan times we live in, how state legislative maps are being drawn has become one of the most hotly debated and closely watched issues of the year. For this show, we are joined by one of the nation's foremost experts on redistricting, Ben Williams, Program Principal for Elections & Redistricting for the National Conference of State Legislatures, to get to nitty gritty on one truly messy aspects of political sausage making. 

Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/thatsall Freedom to Vote Act: https://www.klobuchar.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/e/4/e448657f-914b-43a3-9153-05cabfb31c76/68440D88BF5EF1F90133FCB5AD2865D9.freedom-to-vote-act-text.pdf What's In the Freedom to Vote Act? https://www.businessinsider.com/freedom-to-vote-act-john-lewis-voting-rights-bill-explainer-2022-1 Partisan Gerrymandering is the process of redistricting a state to dilute the voting power of a political party. Problem is, the rules change on districting based on what state you live in. In “The Freedom to Vote Act” congress is … Continue reading Congress Solves Partisan Gerrymandering! The Freedom to Vote Act, Explained →

The post GOP legislators commence another round of partisan gerrymandering appeared first on NC Policy Watch.

(00:00) Local News Chat: Covid Cases & Masking at MoM (18:30) Your Take on Problems with Partisan Redistricting (39:00) Matt Payette, Calumet County, on Redistricting Timing (58:00) Prof Art Cyr on Inflation Fears & Afghanistan Pullout (87:30) The Takeaway: Seeing The Full Picture On Precautions

CW - Brief mentions of rape in the context of Historic Enslavement in the US Associated Links: Blog link: https://harrisees.wordpress.com/2021/05/31/20-may-2021-conversation-with-jen-peeples-phil-session/ Youtube (where this content is replicated): https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCoS6H2R1Or4MtabrkofdOMw Twitter: https://twitter.com/TracieHarris Pinterest: https://www.pinterest.com/tharris1773/ Paypal: http://paypal.me/athomeinmyhead Helpful Resources: 1619 Project: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/08/14/magazine/1619-america-slavery.html Race and Cultural Diversity in American Life: https://www.coursera.org/learn/race-cultural-diversity-american-life United States v. Bhagat Singh Thind - Citizenship Case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Bhagat_Singh_Thind Elizabeth Freeman - Successfully sued for her freedom: https://www.history.com/news/elizabeth-freeman-slavery-case-dred-scott-freedom SCOTUS refuses to block Partisan Gerrymandering: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/27/supreme-court-decides-that-courts-cannot-block-gerrymandering.html Texas Winter Storm 2021: https://www.texastribune.org/2021/03/15/texas-winter-storm-deaths/ TX customers pay more for power: https://www.wsj.com/articles/texas-electric-bills-were-28-billion-higher-under-deregulation-11614162780#:~:text=Those%20deregulated%20Texas%20residential%20consumers,the%20federal%20Energy%20Information%20Administration Music Credits: “Wishful Thinking” - Dan Lebowitz [https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOg3zLw7St5V4N7O8HSoQRA] “The Shade” – Text Me Records / Social Work [https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOQyfUmWPaf5uA40I0Zrn2A] --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/tracie-harris/support

Voting is perhaps the most fundamental act of democratic citizenship. In a democracy, our political leaders receive their mandate, and the system itself derives its legitimacy, from the people who elect them. In the United States, however, the right to vote has never been extended universally. Although the franchise has expanded to include many more citizens since 1776, these gains have come haltingly and unevenly. Even as women gained suffrage, African Americans were kept from the polls in many parts of the country for decades. And elected officials have long meddled with district boundaries to choose their constituents, rather than the other way around. This month, hosts Lauren Henry and Eric Michael Rhodes speak with two experts on voter disenfranchisement in the United States—Professors Daniel P. Tokaji and Pippa Holloway—to consider the past and present of voting rights. How does historical voter suppression continue to affect electoral outcomes today? Listen in to find out. To learn more about the history of voting, check out these Origins features: A History of Stolen Citizenship; Re-mapping American Politics: The Redistricting Revolution Fifty Years Later Posted: July 2019 Connect with us! Email: Origins@osu.edu Twitter: @OriginsOSU Instagram: @OriginsOSU Facebook: @OriginsOSU Find transcripts, background reading, and more at origins.osu.edu

This episode takes a look at three different cases: Reynolds v. Sims (1964) about malapportioned districts; Shaw v. Reno (1993) about racial gerrymandering; and Rucho v. Common Cause (2019) about partisan gerrymandering. According to the Supreme Court, districts cannot be malapportioned or drawn in a way that intentionally groups voters based on race. The practice of intentionally grouping voters based on partisanship is not something the Court is willing to address, however, and Chief Justice John Roberts explains why in his opinion announcement in Rucho.

GOP gerrymandering guru Thomas Hofeller died in 2018. His daughter Stephanie just released 70,000 files that detail his successful voter suppression efforts. Here is what these disclosures show and what they mean for US democracy.

 REVERBERATIONS OF INEQUALITY  Interviewer: MATTHEW BERKMAN. Since the days of Massachusetts Governor Eldridge Gerry (pronounced with a hard g), whose 1812 redistricting plan for the state senate produced the salamander-shaped district that made his name famous, American political parties have sought to draw electoral maps to their own advantage. What has changed recently, argues DAVID DALEY, is the sophistication of the technology available to achieve this end – and the slowness of laws and courts to keep up. In his discussion with political scientist Matthew Berkman, Daley describes how Republicans made a brilliant political play in the 2010 elections to gain control of state legislatures and, consequently, the power to draw electoral maps. And while lower courts have been open to computer-aided fairness tests, the Supreme Court under John Roberts has rejected this role for the judiciary. Daley, author of Ratf**ked: Why Your Vote Doesn't Count, find room for hope, but fears that time may be running out to prevent “democracy deserts” from appearing in many U.S. states.

State court rulings have ended partisan gerrymandering in North Carolina on both the state and congressional levels. The rulings could lead the way for progressive activists who’ve been shut out at the Supreme Court. This episode is a part of Slate’s Who Counts? initiative. In the run-up to the 2020 election, Slate will be investigating who counts in the voting booth, who counts as an American, whose money counts in the democratic process, and whose doesn’t. And we need your help. Your support will let us assign more stories, travel to overlooked places, commission special podcast projects, and pay for reporting we otherwise would not be able to do. To learn more about this project and how to support our work, please go to slate.com/whocounts. Guest: Slate’s Mark Joseph Stern   Slate Plus members get bonus segments and ad-free podcast feeds. Sign up now. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

State court rulings have ended partisan gerrymandering in North Carolina on both the state and congressional levels. The rulings could lead the way for progressive activists who’ve been shut out at the Supreme Court. This episode is a part of Slate’s Who Counts? initiative. In the run-up to the 2020 election, Slate will be investigating who counts in the voting booth, who counts as an American, whose money counts in the democratic process, and whose doesn’t. And we need your help. Your support will let us assign more stories, travel to overlooked places, commission special podcast projects, and pay for reporting we otherwise would not be able to do. To learn more about this project and how to support our work, please go to slate.com/whocounts. Guest: Slate’s Mark Joseph Stern   Slate Plus members get bonus segments and ad-free podcast feeds. Sign up now. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Every decade, politicians update voting districts to account for population shifts as measured by the U.S. Census. Of course, partisan politicians are inclined to draw maps that favor their own party, resulting in partisan gerrymandering. In this episode, Dustin G. Mixon will explore how tools from mathematics can help to deter this growing threat to democracy.

In this episode, we continue our discussion of partisan gerrymandering. We consider the pros and cons of more proportional systems, and ask to what degree proportionality should be sacrificed in order to ensure minority representation.Toby Napoletano, Michael Hughes, Hanna Gunn

The Supreme Court ruled last month that federal courts cannot rule on cases of partisan gerrymandering, saying that judges are not entitled to second-guess the decisions made by state legislators who draw voting maps. We spoke to one man who has long believed there’s a way to address the issue without the courts. Guest: Eric H. Holder Jr., who served as the United States attorney general for six years under President Barack Obama. For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily. Background reading: The Supreme Court’s decision on gerrymandering instantly raised the stakes for the nation’s state legislative races, which are often overlooked by voters, but can shape the course of policy from abortion rights to education.What is gerrymandering, and why did the Supreme Court rule on it? Here’s a refresher.

In this episode, we begin our discussion of partisan gerrymandering: what is it? How, exactly, does it happen, and why? What are the harms of it, and if it's unfair, why is it unfair? Answering these questions forces us to grapple with the very goods that a representational democracy is meant to secure.Toby Napoletano, Michael Hughes, Hanna Gunn

Interested in the background reading we did for this episode? There's a lot of it. But we want to show our work and give you the chance to dig deeper. Below are the articles we referenced, read, or drew upon for our conversation on the illiberal right. Primary Sources: Against the Dead Consensus, First Things Sohrab Ahmari, Against David French-ism, First Things David French, What Sohrab Ahmari Gets Wrong, National Review R.R. Reno, What Liberalism Lacks, First Things Romanus Cessario, O.P., Non Possumus, First Things Edmund Waldstein, O. Cist., Integralism in Three Sentences, The Josias Ross Douthat, What are Conservatives Actually Debating?, New York Times Rod Dreher, The Meaning of the Benedict Option, The American Conservative Adrian Vermeule, Integration from Within, American Affairs Adrian Vermeule, A Christian Strategy, First Things Commentary: Matthew Sitman, Liberalism and the Catholic Left (a review of Patrick Deneen's Why Liberalism Failed), Commonweal Emma Green, Imagining Post-Trump Nationalism, The Atlantic Jane Coaston, David French vs. Sohrab Ahmari, Explained, Vox Damon Linker, How the Intellectual Right is Talking Itself into Tearing Down American Democracy, The Week Sam Adler-Bell, With Census Decision, Trump's GOP Falters in March to White Minority Rule, The Intercept Isaac Chotiner, Interview with Ross Douthat on the Crisis of the Conservative Coalition, New Yorker Eric Levitz, Oregon Republicans Flee State to Block Action on Climate Change, New York Patricia Mazzei, Florida Limits Ex-Felon Voting, Prompting a Lawsuit and Cries of ‘Poll Tax’, New York Times Adam Liptak, Supreme Court Bars Challenges to Partisan Gerrymandering, New York Times

Following the U.S. Supreme Court's decision not to take on partisan gerrymandering Wharton's Steven Kimbrough offers solutions for how to more fairly define the boundaries of voting districts. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Following the U.S. Supreme Court's decision not to take on partisan gerrymandering, Wharton's Steven Kimbrough offers solutions for how to more fairly define the boundaries of voting districts.

6.27.19 #RolandMartinUnfiltered: SCOTUS allows partisan Gerrymandering and blocks the census citizenship question; Fist Democratic debate took place last night and will bring you a recap of all of the fireworks; An Alabama woman was charged with manslaughter in the death of her unborn child; Florida cop and his crazy ass son go on a rampage against black people in a restaurant - #RolandMartinUnfiltered partner: 420 Real Estate, LLC To invest in 420 Real Estate’s legal Hemp-CBD Crowdfunding Campaign go to http://marijuanastock.org

Following the U.S. Supreme Court's decision not to take on partisan gerrymandering, Wharton's Steven Kimbrough offers solutions for how to more fairly define the boundaries of voting districts.

Partisan gerrymandering can't be disputed in federal court but states can police the practice, as Colorado does. Then, the Keeling Curve Prize for climate solutions. Next, why so many brick homes in Cap Hill? And, a MLB ump honors a 13-year-old ref after parents scuffled at the teen's game. Then, the 10-year-old who scaled El Cap. Finally, meet Indie 102.3.

Partisan gerrymandering can’t be disputed in federal court but states can police the practice, as Colorado does. Then, the Keeling Curve Prize for climate solutions. Next, why so many brick homes in Cap Hill? And, a MLB ump honors a 13-year-old ref after parents scuffled at the teen’s game. Then, the 10-year-old who scaled El Cap. Finally, meet Indie 102.3.

The Top Stories: Supreme Court blocks citizenship question; Speaker Pelosi bows to McConnell on border aid bill; Supreme Justices say 'Partisan Gerrymandering is None of our Business'; the Democrat Debates begin; and Twitter says it will start labeling tweets from influential government officials who break the rules. Michael Johns is the National Co-founder and leader of the Tea Party Movement, former White House Speechwriter and a Policy Analyst with The Heritage Foundation. Ava Armstrong is a Political Commentator, Radio Personality and an outstanding Author who writes about America’s heroes. G20 Highlights: President Trump met with President Xi of China in bilateral discussions primarily focused on trade agreements, the highlights were: United States and China will resume trade discussions at the point they left off. Trump will not place additional tariffs on $345 billion worth of Chinese goods as long as negotiations are in process. Trump confirms US companies can continue to sell to Huawei during G20 press conference. Trump tells Vladimir Putin not to ‘meddle in the election,’ after being prompted by a journalist. Captain Stu Cvrk is a retired naval officer, a defense contractor, and contributor on America Out Loud. Dennis Santiago is an American Strategist, Philosopher and Patriot, and a contributor on America Out Loud. America's Survival Guide: Why has PATRIOTISM become so political today? There is an overwhelming evidence of ignorance of American history and the founding principles, who is responsible for this? In Judge Warren’s book he talks about America, survival, his book, America’s Survival Guide,  focuses on principles, starting with the founding fathers and their thought process behind the foundation of the United States, a rather philosophical examination of the rationale that went into formulating this great country. Judge Michael Warren, American Patriot; Judge of the Year 2018; Author of America’s Survival Guide. Do remember to Rate the show, leave a quick review and subscribe to Viewpoint on Apple Podcasts by clicking here. Your voice for the fight forward, Malcolm Out Loud June 30th 10 AM EST Encore Presentation AT 6 PM Available on Podcast Networks After 1 PM

The Supreme Court has left the legality of Gerrymandering up to the states. Should anything be done about this and what does it mean for future elections? Justin and Lance provide some historical context and discuss the implications in today's world.tags: politics, government, gerrymandering, republican, democrat, independent, representation, congress, constitution, supreme court, tsou, truechat, justin weller, lance jackson

Anoa is joined by Nse Ufot, executive director of the New Georgia Project and New Georgia Project Action Fund and Aimee Castenell, communications director extraordinaire. The trio chop it up about the recent SCOTUS cases on gerrymandering and the census. Nse ties in the deep work happening in Georgia around voter engagement and fighting the ghost of Jim Crow with the Roberts' Court active dismantling of voting rights and civic engagement. Learn more about the New Georgia Project and the New Georgia Project Action Fund here.

No help from the courts on partisan gerrymandering.

President Trump says he is looking into delaying the 2020 census, hours after the Supreme Court decided to keep a question about citizenship off the form to be used for the head count. Plus, the Supreme Court ruled that partisan redistricting is a political question — not reviewable by federal courts. This episode: White House correspondent Tamara Keith, political editor Domenico Montanaro, political reporter Miles Parks, and reporter Hansi Lo Wang. Email the show at nprpolitics@npr.org. Find and support your local public radio station at npr.org/stations.

Independent investigative journalism, broadcasting, trouble-making and muckraking with Brad Friedman of BradBlog.com

Independent investigative journalism, broadcasting, trouble-making and muckraking with Brad Friedman of BradBlog.com

The Supreme Court heard two partisan gerrymandering cases—one from North Carolina and another from Maryland—this week: Lamone v. Benisek and Rucho v. Common Cause. Examining those cases and how the Court might rule, host Jeffrey Rosen sits down with Nick Stephanopoulos, one of the attorneys in the North Carolina case and a law professor at the University of Chicago, and Hans von Spakovsky, manager of the Election Law Reform Initiative at the Heritage Foundation. These scholars debate whether or not the Supreme Court should be involved in examining partisan gerrymandering claims, and discuss what the Constitution says about gerrymandering. For more information and resources, visit constitutioncenter.org/podcasts. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

The Supreme Court heard two partisan gerrymandering cases—one from North Carolina and another from Maryland—this week: Lamone v. Benisek and Rucho v. Common Cause. Examining those cases and how the Court might rule, host Jeffrey Rosen sits down with Nick Stephanopoulos, one of the attorneys in the North Carolina case and a law professor at the University of Chicago, and Hans von Spakovsky, manager of the Election Law Reform Initiative at the Heritage Foundation. These scholars debate whether or not the Supreme Court should be involved in examining partisan gerrymandering claims, and discuss what the Constitution says about gerrymandering. For more information and resources, visit constitutioncenter.org/podcasts. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

It’s time for the Cases and Controversies SCOTUS Sneak Peek for the week of March 25. The justices will hear arguments in five cases this week, including two of the biggest disputes of the term: partisan gerrymandering and government agency deference. Hosts: Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin. Producer: Nicholas Anzalotta-Kynoch. 

This Term, the Supreme Court will once again tackle the issue of partisan redistricting when it reviews two cases to determine whether state legislatures violated the Constitution by intentionally diluting their citizens' votes for partisan purposes. Last Term, the Court heard two cases on the topic, but never reached the merits. Instead, it decided the cases on jurisdictional grounds.With those issues arguably resolved, the Court now seems ready to weigh in on whether partisan gerrymandering cases are justiciable when it hears Benisek v. Lamone, a challenge to the electoral map drawn by the Democratically-controlled Maryland legislature, and Rucho v. Common Cause, a challenge to the electoral map drawn by the Republican-controlled North Carolina legislature, on March 26, 2019. What test might the Court adopt for determining when redistricting is legitimate or illegitimate, and what are the implications of the various possibilities? How is the Supreme Court, now without Justice Kennedy, likely to rule on the merits? Featured Speakers: Kareem Crayton, Interim Executive Director, Southern Coalition for Social Justice Nicholas Stephanopoulos, Professor of Law, Herbert and Marjorie Fried Research Scholar, University of Chicago Law School Jenni Katzman, moderator, Director of Policy and Program, ACS

On this edition of SCOTUS Deep Dive, we’ll take a look at the partisan gerrymandering challenges out of North Carolina and Maryland that the court will hear in back-to-back arguments March 26. Partisan gerrymandering has confounded the Supreme Court for decades, as the justices have struggled to find a neutral, manageable way to root out extreme partisanship. The justices considered the question just last term in cases out of Wisconsin and the same case from Maryland. But they putted those on procedural grounds. The issue, however, has once again bubbled back up to the court. Paul Smith and Misha Tseytlin—who faced off last term in Wisconsin case—describe the differences this time around, as well as the potentially huge stakes in play. Hosts: Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin.Producer: Nicholas Anzalotta-Kynoch.

Welcome back to Counting to 5, a podcast about the United States Supreme Court. In this episode, I take a look at five new cases granted for next term, and I review the Court’s decisions issued on June 18, 2018, in five argued cases, including two cases about partisan gerrymandering, Gill v. Whitford and Benisek … Continue reading Episode 053: Livestream — Partisan Gerrymandering Anticlimax

Greg Stohr, Bloomberg News Supreme Court reporter, discusses the day's news from the Supreme Court after the nine justices cast doubt on the ability of voters to challenge statewide congressional maps for being overly partisan, siding with Republicans in a fight over GOP-friendly voting lines for the Wisconsin Assembly. Plus, University of Utah professor Christopher Peterson discusses President Trump's pick to lead the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, a relatively unknown OMB official who would take over from acting director Mick Mulvaney. They speak with Bloomberg’s Peter Barnes and June Grasso. 

Greg Stohr, Bloomberg News Supreme Court reporter, discusses the day's news from the Supreme Court after the nine justices cast doubt on the ability of voters to challenge statewide congressional maps for being overly partisan, siding with Republicans in a fight over GOP-friendly voting lines for the Wisconsin Assembly. Plus, University of Utah professor Christopher Peterson discusses President Trump's pick to lead the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, a relatively unknown OMB official who would take over from acting director Mick Mulvaney. They speak with Bloomberg's Peter Barnes and June Grasso.  Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com

Aaron Freiwald, Managing Partner of Freiwald Law and host of the weekly podcast series Good Law | Bad Law, is joined by Ben Geffen, an attorney at the Public Interest Law Center, to talk about the recent landmark “gerrymandering” case in Pennsylvania.  Ben is one of the lawyers behind this historic Supreme Court case.   This case, a blow to partisan gerrymandering, not only has led to a redrawing of the Congressional map in Pennsylvania, but may contribute to more wide-ranging political change in the midterm elections this November.   Throughout our conversation, Ben details the normal process in which Congressional district lines are redrawn every ten years after the census.  The census determines how many seats a state has in Congress based on population shifts since the previous census.  That information is used in the drawing of district lines to ensure that each district is given an equal vote.   The political party in charge of the state legislature always has the upper hand in how district lines change, but when redistricting becomes more overtly partisan and is done in a way to lock in one party’s electoral advantage over the other party, then that can be unlawful.   Partisan gerrymandering often uses  “packing and cracking.” As the lines are being drawn, the opposing party’s voters will either be “packed” into a single district, giving that party a major advantage, or “cracked”, meaning that they will be spread thinly and separated into surrounding districts.   Though this happens everywhere, Pennsylvania’s Republicans took redistricting to a new level of partisanship in 2011, the Supreme Court ruled a few weeks ago.  Since then, Republicans consistently have won 13 of the 18 seats in the state even though there were times when they only earned 48% of the votes.   In January, the PA Supreme Court ruled the Republican-drawn maps violated the Pennsylvania Constitution in favor of the Republican Party and ordered the district lines be re-drawn.  (Just last week, The U.S. Supreme Court rejected an 11th hour Motion to Stay filed by the Pennsylvania’s State Republican leadership.)   Listen in as Aaron and Ben discuss gerrymandering in the US, specifically how it is affecting PA and its districts, as well as Public Interest Law Center’s involvement in the case.   Click here to see the old and new district maps: http://www.philly.com/philly/news/politics/state/pennsylvania-gerrymandering-case-congressional-redistricting-map-coverage-guide-20180308.html   Remember to tune in every Friday for new episodes of Good Law | Bad Law!   Host: Aaron Freiwald Guest: Ben Geffen   Follow Good Law | Bad Law: YouTube: Good Law | Bad Law Instagram: @GoodLawBadLaw Website: https://www.GoodLawBadLawPodcast.com

Gerrymandering: What’s the Big Deal? Host: Ann Luther, League of Women Voters of Maine Engineer: Joel Mann How redistricting has changed over the last 50 years Thee emergence of extreme partisan gerrymandering Court cases pending before the U.S. Supreme Court Why it matters in Maine. Guests: Matt Dube, Assistant Professor in Computer Information Systems at the University of Maine in Augusta www.uma.edu/directory/staff/matthew-p-dube/ Elaine Kamark, Senior Fellow in the Governance Studies at the Brookings Institution www.brookings.edu/experts/elaine-kamarck/ To learn more about this topic: Gerrymandering and how to fix it, from Elaine Kamark at Brookings. The new front in the gerrymandering wars, from the New York Times Magazine, August, 2017. We Drew 2,568 Congressional Districts By Hand. Here’s How., from the 538 Gerrymandering Project, January 25, 2018. Mathematical Characteristics of District Boundary Lines as Indicators of Partisan Gerrymandering in U.S. House Elections, Richard J. Powell, Matthew P. Dube, and Jesse T. Clark, April, 2017. Assessing the Causes of District Homogeneity in U.S. House Elections, Richard J. Powell, Matthew P. Dube, and Jesse T. Clark, August, 2017

Electoral districts ebb and flow. The ever-changing population in different areas across the country creates the challenge of drawing the districts as close to accurately representative as possible. When drawing, the lines can get a little blurry, communities can become divided, and the way the edges of the districts are formed can determine the outcome […]

SCOTUS takes on a second partisan gerrymandering case, signaling a willingness to finally brave the thorny legal thicket this term, says election law expert Richard Pildes (NYU Law); plus 9th Circuit reporter Nick Sonnenburg unpacks oral arguments in a novel constitutional challenge by youth plaintiffs over the government's handling of climate change

Is partisan gerrymandering illegal? In the second installment of our gerrymandering series we look at a Supreme Court case that could reshape how we draw political boundaries.

Do voters choose elected officials or do elected officials choose their voters? The answer is usually the latter, as redistricting has become an exact science with states legislators utilizing computer programs that allow them to tip the scales in elections. But now good government advocates have a metric for identifying partisan gerrymandering, the “efficiency gap,” … Continue reading "The Formula to Beat Partisan Gerrymandering"

The issue of how much partisan gerrymandering is too much is before the U.S. Supreme Court. The court heard oral arguments Tuesday on a case out of Wisconsin challenging maps there for being too lopsided in favor of Republicans. That case could have huge implications in North Carolina, which has a nearly identical political situation, and where a similar case is winding its way through the courts. For the latest, BPR's Jeremy Loeb spoke with Western Carolina University political scientist Chris Cooper.

(Bloomberg) -- Michael Li, senior counsel at the Brennan Center for Justice, and Richard Briffault, a professor at Columbia Law School, discuss the Supreme Court Case Gill v. Whitford, which will decide whether a redistricting map that’s skewed to help one political party can ever be so extreme that it violates the Constitution. They speak with Bloomberg's June Grasso on Bloomberg Radio's Bloomberg Law.

“It is an invidious, undemocratic, and unconstitutional practice,” Justice John Paul Stevens said of gerrymandering in Vieth v. Jubelirer (2004). Politicians have been manipulating district lines to favor one party over another since the founding of our nation. But with a case starting today, Gill v. Whitford, the Supreme Court may be in a position to crack this historical nut once and for all. Up until this point, the court didn’t have a standard measure or test for how much one side had unfairly drawn district lines. But “the efficiency gap” could be it. The mathematical formula measures how many votes Democrats and Republicans waste in elections — if either side is way outside the norm, there may be some foul play at hand. According to Loyola law professor Justin Levitt, both the case and the formula arrive at a critical time: “After the census in 2020, all sorts of different bodies will redraw all sorts of different lines and this case will help decide how and where.” The key voices: Moon Duchin, Associate Professor at Tufts University Justin Levitt, Professor of Law at Loyola Law School, Los Angeles The key cases: 2004: Vieth v. Jubelirer 2017: Gill v. Whitford The key links: “A Formula Goes to Court” by Mira Bernstein and Moon Duchin “Partisan Gerrymandering and the Efficiency Gap” by Nicholas Stephanopoulos and Eric McGhee  Special thanks to David Herman. Leadership support for More Perfect is provided by The Joyce Foundation. Additional funding is provided by The Charles Evans Hughes Memorial Foundation. Supreme Court archival audio comes from Oyez®, a free law project in collaboration with the Legal Information Institute at Cornell. 

(Bloomberg) -- Michael Li, senior counsel at the Brennan Center for Justice, and Richard Briffault, a professor at Columbia Law School, discuss the Supreme Court Case Gill v. Whitford, which will decide whether a redistricting map that's skewed to help one political party can ever be so extreme that it violates the Constitution. They speak with Bloomberg's June Grasso on Bloomberg Radio's Bloomberg Law. Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com

(Bloomberg) -- Josh Douglas, a professor at the University of Kentucky School of Law, discusses an upcoming Supreme Court case, where the justices will consider whether judges can throw out legislative maps for being so partisan that they violate the constitution. He speaks with June Grasso and Greg Stohr on Bloomberg Radio's "Bloomberg Law."

(Bloomberg) -- Josh Douglas, a professor at the University of Kentucky School of Law, discusses an upcoming Supreme Court case, where the justices will consider whether judges can throw out legislative maps for being so partisan that they violate the constitution. He speaks with June Grasso and Greg Stohr on Bloomberg Radio's "Bloomberg Law." Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com

(Bloomberg) -- Rick Hasen, a professor at the University of California Irvine, and founder of the Election Law Blog, and Josh Douglas, a professor at the University of Kentucky School of Law, discuss a Monday decision by the Supreme Court to take on a case deciding whether judges can throw out legislative maps for being so partisan they violate the Constitution. They speak with June Grasso and Greg Stohr on Bloomberg Radio's "Bloomberg Law."

(Bloomberg) -- Rick Hasen, a professor at the University of California Irvine, and founder of the Election Law Blog, and Josh Douglas, a professor at the University of Kentucky School of Law, discuss a Monday decision by the Supreme Court to take on a case deciding whether judges can throw out legislative maps for being so partisan they violate the Constitution. They speak with June Grasso and Greg Stohr on Bloomberg Radio's "Bloomberg Law." Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com

In this the twenty-third episode of The Law Is My Ass, Sid and Joe march through some of the more interesting legislation and litigation of the week, including a thorough discussion of all four of the week's mostly-almost-unanimous Supreme Court decisions. Then we have a great interview with Sachin Chheda of the Fair Elections Project to talk about partisan gerrymandering and the status of the Wisconsin gerrymandering suit now in front of the Supreme Court, in which they answer just how rigged do electoral districts have to be in order to be illegal (hint: 7%); would a stay tell us anything about the court's views on the merits (hint: probably not); and who will we blame for the Packers' shortcomings now that we don't have Olivia Munn to kick around anymore (hint: probably the fans). All that and a great listener question! Give it a listen, and keep it legal!

Nicholas Stephanopoulos of the University of Chicago and Michael Morley of Barry University discuss a big Wisconsin case that could reach the Supreme Court. Get the latest constitutional news, and continue the conversation, on Facebook and Twitter. We want to know what you think of the podcast! Email us at editor@constitutioncenter.org. Please subscribe to We the People and our companion podcast, Live at America’s Town Hall, on iTunes, Stitcher, or your favorite podcast app. We the People is a member of Slate’s Panoply network. Check out the full roster at Panoply.fm. Despite our congressional charter, the National Constitution Center is a private nonprofit; we receive little government support, and we rely on the generosity of people around the country who are inspired by our nonpartisan mission of constitutional debate and education. Please consider becoming a member to support our work, including this podcast. Visit constitutioncenter.org to learn more. This show was engineered by Jason Gregory and produced by Nicandro Iannacci. Research was provided by Lana Ulrich. The host of We the People is Jeffrey Rosen.

Nicholas Stephanopoulos of the University of Chicago and Michael Morley of Barry University discuss a big Wisconsin case that could reach the Supreme Court. Get the latest constitutional news, and continue the conversation, on Facebook and Twitter. We want to know what you think of the podcast! Email us at editor@constitutioncenter.org. Please subscribe to We the People and our companion podcast, Live at America’s Town Hall, on iTunes, Stitcher, or your favorite podcast app. We the People is a member of Slate’s Panoply network. Check out the full roster at Panoply.fm. Despite our congressional charter, the National Constitution Center is a private nonprofit; we receive little government support, and we rely on the generosity of people around the country who are inspired by our nonpartisan mission of constitutional debate and education. Please consider becoming a member to support our work, including this podcast. Visit constitutioncenter.org to learn more. This show was engineered by Jason Gregory and produced by Nicandro Iannacci. Research was provided by Lana Ulrich. The host of We the People is Jeffrey Rosen.