SAN FRANCISCO - Voting-rights advocates are celebrating Monday's decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to reaffirm the concept of "one person, one vote," rejecting attempts to change the way state legislative districts are drawn.

In the case, Evenwel v. Abbott, the plaintiff argued that the districts should all have an equal number of voters, as opposed to an equal number of people.

But Kathay Feng, California director of the watchdog group Common Cause, says that would exclude anyone who doesn't vote – including children, people who are in prison, undocumented, or waiting for citizenship papers to go through.

"To count only those people who are registered voters would exclude tens of millions of people from representation," Feng says. "It would distort the way that districts are drawn."

The cities of Los Angeles and San Francisco signed a legal brief in the case supporting what the court ultimately decided.

Legislative district population numbers are used for representation in state government and on regional boards for water and air quality. They also help determine how much money is allocated for such services as public safety, roads and schools.

Feng warns that urban areas, with more nonvoters like children and immigrants, would be shortchanged if districts are drawn based on numbers of voters.

"Those people who are most commonly registered don't represent the population as a whole," she says. "They do tend to be people who are homeowners, who are more educated, who are white."

Feng also argues that a system based on voter rolls could give politicians the incentive to ignore large swaths of their constituents and even work to exclude people they think might not support their campaigns.



get more stories like this via email

Some ballot initiatives this year have taken more than voter signatures to get onto the ballot in Nebraska. They've already withstood major court challenges.

This month, the Nebraska Supreme Court has heard two legal challenges to an abortion-related ballot initiative, even though it got 200,000 signatures.

Both claimed the initiative violated the state's single-subject rule. A third lawsuit argued that neither of the two ballot initiatives on abortion violate the single-subject rule, suggesting both, or neither, should be on the ballot. The justices allowed both to remain.

Joshua Livingston, an attorney at the Koenig Dunne law firm in Omaha, which filed the third lawsuit, said it is noteworthy the justices agreed on the single-subject rule issue but stressed their comments about ballot initiatives are also noteworthy.

"The opinion did say that the right of ballot initiatives is a protected right," Livingston pointed out. "That needs to be democratically and liberally construed to allow for people to vote."

The Nebraska justices also rejected a lawsuit challenging a ballot initiative which would eliminate $10 million of state funding annually for private and parochial school scholarships. Nebraska is the only state with two abortion questions on the ballot this year, and the only one with an initiative seeking to restrict abortion access.

Adam Snipes, director of strategic partnerships at the Ballot Initiative Strategy Center, said about two dozen states have some provision for citizen-initiated ballot initiatives. What they allow varies, including amending a state constitution, creating state statutes and/or vetoing a referendum.

But Snipes said more initiatives are being challenged through legislative attacks, court cases and administrations blocking or delaying them once they have passed.

"From our perspective, it's because our issues are winning every time," Snipes explained. "We believe that these attacks on the direct democracy process are happening because legislators are wanting to take the power away from the people because they don't like the outcomes of the election."

So far, voters in four states have amended their constitutions to protect abortion rights and in two others, they have rejected initiatives to restrict them.

Support for this reporting was provided by The Carnegie Corporation of New York.


get more stories like this via email

Early voting begins today in Minnesota and the state has implemented policy moves with the intent of making voting easier.

Nonpartisan civic engagement voices hope community-level volunteers step up in case issues still arise. Curbside voting is a long-standing option for those with disabilities and around the state, new voting machines are surfacing to improve accessibility for those with visual impairments and other disabilities.

Annastacia Belladonna-Carrera, executive director of Common Cause Minnesota, said they have seen patterns in other states where election staff have had difficulties operating them. She acknowledged it was not a problem during Minnesota's primary but they want to be vigilant this fall.

"How many counties are out there that perhaps are having some of these issues and we're not hearing about it because we just don't have the capacity?" Belladonna-Carrera wondered.

She stressed the potential for problems is why trained volunteers are needed at voting sites to assist or connect people with resources like the Common Cause Election Protection Hotline. On the policy side, Minnesota this year now requires multilingual voting information with interpreters available upon request.

Common Cause is recruiting people to spread the word about the changes at community events and in other social settings so marginalized voters are aware.

Belladonna-Carrera emphasized Minnesota has a strong reputation for voting access but unintentional mistakes could still pop up. The state has bolstered funding for local election administrators but she noted some offices could still be under-resourced. She added having volunteers on hand who live in the community can help prevent or resolve potential problems.

"We want to make sure that all hands are on deck," Belladonna-Carrera stressed. "Neighbors are helping neighbors."

Common Cause volunteers are not staffed by a political party, with Belladonna-Carrera noting the nonpartisan approach helps dispel misinformation about election integrity.

Support for this reporting was provided by The Carnegie Corporation of New York.


get more stories like this via email

A new analysis of money contributed to 2024 congressional candidates showed women contribute about as frequently as men but dollar amounts are significantly lower.

Kira Sanbonmatsu, senior scholar at the Center for American Women and Politics and lead author of the analysis, found women contribute more money to Democratic than Republican candidates and more money to women candidates than men.

"Men have provided over 60% of all the money contributed to congressional candidates; 37% by women," Sanbonmatsu reported. "This reflects the larger contributions that men make."

She pointed out men's contributions more often go to Republican candidates. In New Mexico the race for the second Congressional District is considered one of the most competitive in the country. First-term Rep. Gabe Vasquez, D-N.M., is facing former representative Yvette Herrell, the Republican he defeated two years ago.

Sanbonmatsu noted women have contributed 42% of all money given to Democratic congressional candidates and only 29% of all money given to Republican congressional candidates.

"If you look at the number of individuals who are giving, not the money, we are finding that women are about half of donors," Sanbonmatsu explained. "In that sense, the participation rate is better than how much money is being contributed."

Women are candidates in all three of New Mexico's congressional districts. Sanbonmatsu added women from historically underrepresented racial and ethnic groups are especially underrepresented as donors to those candidates.

Support for this reporting was provided by The Carnegie Corporation of New York.