U.S. Supreme Court Oral Argument : Louisiana v. Callais (Congressional Map)

U.S. Supreme Court Oral Argument : Louisiana v. Callais (Congressional Map)

During the Supreme Court oral argument in Louisiana v. Callais on March 24, 2025, the central issue was whether the congressional map enacted by Louisiana in 2024 appropriately balanced constitutional protections and the requirements of the Voting Rights Act (VRA). The Legal Defense Fund (LDF), represented by Stuart Naifeh, argued that the map should be upheld as it fairly acknowledged the political power of Black Louisianians, who constitute one-third of the state's population, by creating two majority-Black districts. This was in contrast to a previous map from 2022 deemed likely to violate the VRA by having only one majority-Black district.…
Read More
Watch: Former Chief Senate Legal Counsel Discusses the Status of Ohio’s Redistricting Map Saga on “The State of Ohio” Program

Watch: Former Chief Senate Legal Counsel Discusses the Status of Ohio’s Redistricting Map Saga on “The State of Ohio” Program

Last Friday, The State of Ohio weekly news program discussed gerrymandering reform and the status of redistricting maps in the State with Frank Strigari, former Chief Legal Counsel for the Ohio Senate. The discussion starts at 6:44. Find us on:
Read More
Watch: George Wash. University’s Peyton McCrary Discusses Voting Rights, Alabama, and SCOTUS on C-SPAN

Watch: George Wash. University’s Peyton McCrary Discusses Voting Rights, Alabama, and SCOTUS on C-SPAN

From CSPAN.org's Washington Journal: Peyton McCrary on the Supreme Court and Voting RightsOn Monday, Peyton McCrary discussed the impact of the Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision on Allen v. Milligan, which upheld Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. The challenge was brought by minority voters in Alabama following the redrawing of the state's congressional districts after the 2020 census. McCrary, now a professorial lecturer at George Washington University Law School, retired as a historian in the Civil Rights Division of the United States Department of Justice in 2016. Since leaving government service, he has testified as an expert witness in…
Read More
Listen to Supreme Court Oral Argument in the Maryland Partisan Gerrymandering Case

Listen to Supreme Court Oral Argument in the Maryland Partisan Gerrymandering Case

On March 26, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Benesik v. Lamone, a partisan gerrymandering case from Maryland. Click here for background on this case and its companion case, Rucho v. Common Cause (North Carolina). For a pre oral symposium hosted by SCOTUSBlog, click here. Click here to listen to oral argument for Rucho v. Common Cause.
Read More
Watch: A Mathematical Measurement of Partisan Gerrymandering

Watch: A Mathematical Measurement of Partisan Gerrymandering

. Researchers at Duke University do a good job explaining their quantitative analysis of North Carolina’s congressional redistricting maps in lay terms. In this video they present fairly solid statistical proof that partisan gerrymandering indeed can be sniffed out by statistical algorithms that show when a map is the result of intentional and precise human design, and not mere adjustment of the boundaries that are already there. Of course, this only proves that partisan gerrymandering exists, and it is a helpful measure of the stark differences in the election results between a map drawn with precise political motivations versus on…
Read More
Michigan State Supreme Court Hears Argument on Commission Ballot Initiative

Michigan State Supreme Court Hears Argument on Commission Ballot Initiative

Last week, the Michigan State Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case that pits redistricting reform advocates at odds with opponents about whether to allow a proposal for an independent redistricting commission on the ballot this election year that would amount to a sweeping reform of the redistricting process if approved by Michigan voters. (more…)
Read More