MADISON, Wis. -- In a four-three decision this week, the Wisconsin Supreme Court backed a "least-change" approach to redistricting in the state.

The decision means the court will likely make minimal alterations when drawing Wisconsin's new legislative and congressional district maps, an important milestone in the redistricting process.

Sachin Chheda, director and co-founder of the Fair Elections Project, said the battle over the maps is far from over.

"They still have to develop and implement a map from the state court perspective," Chheda explained. "So they still have to come up with a map. And that will still take a few weeks, even maybe a couple of months."

Wisconsin's current district lines, which were drafted in 2011, have been criticized since then by anti-gerrymandering groups. The Princeton Gerrymandering Project, a nonpartisan watchdog initiative, gave the Republicans' new proposals a failing grade for favoring GOP candidates.

Chheda pointed out even as the maps make their way through the courts, Wisconsinites can still make their voices heard in the redistricting process.

"There's ways for people to be engaged in the fight," Chheda asserted. "Both by just drawing public attention to it and by advocating for legislation that would change this for the long-term, at both the state and federal level."

In the court's ruling, the majority held any alterations to district lines should be limited to reflect population changes and adhere to other legal requirements, like the Voting Rights Act, but said the court will not take into account districts' political composition when drafting new maps.

Anthony LoCoco, deputy counsel for the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty, which brought the case to court, said while other partisan issues may be at play in redistricting, it is not the court's duty to weigh them when drafting new maps.

"There are other political considerations that can go into drawing maps, but that would be the legislature's and, to a lesser extent, the governor's role," LoCoco contended.

The redistricting process is undertaken once every decade, as states receive results from the U.S. Census. The 2020 census data came late this year, which means a compressed timeline for updating the district boundaries.

The midterm elections are less than three months away, and in Iowa, recruiting continues for those interested in helping at polling sites, where the state's top elections official said they need a deep bench.

Paul Pate, Iowa Secretary of State, said in order to carry out a smooth election, the state aims for a roster of 10,000 polling workers, but added some padding is needed. He explained while there are no critical shortages at the moment, they have to have contingency plans.

"Someone might be sick, or if you have some other situation come up," Pate noted. "They are looking for more people to have [as] a fallback position."

He pointed out in some counties they need more of an even balance of party representation among those helping out. Nationwide, concerns have emerged in the past couple of years about poll-worker shortages due to the pandemic, or older workers deciding not to continue without enough younger populations to take their role.

In becoming a poll worker, you receive training as well as a stipend for working. Pate stressed poll workers are the unsung heroes in carrying out elections, adding they are often your friends and neighbors. He hopes it will help to quell growing misinformation surrounding election integrity.

"There's still people out there who push a false narrative, if you will, and poll workers actually serve as a great educational resource because of their training and their being on the job," Pate stated. "When they're out in their own communities, they can speak to the integrity factor, and it really helps."

He emphasized Iowa typically ranks highly in running elections, along with having strong voter turnout. The state has roughly 1,700 voting precincts.

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

By Andrew Kuder / Broadcast version by Mary Schuermann reporting for the Kent State-Ohio News Connection Collaboration.

Sam Lawrence is running for an Ohio Statehouse seat at 19 years old.

"I've always been one of the kids who watched the news, and I knew what was going on, not to the full extent of, kind of obviously, what I'm involved with now," said Lawrence. "[It was] probably right before high school or early in high school when I really found kind of this interest in the politics of it all, not just in the campaigning, but also in the public service aspect once someone is elected."

Lawrence, a political science major running as a Democrat in Ohio's 47th district, hopes his campaign will inspire other Ohioans his age to get more involved in politics.

"That's one of the reasons I decided to run," said Lawrence. "To inspire other young people, maybe to run themselves, but more importantly, to get involved."

In recent years, younger age groups have shown up to the polls in increasing numbers, with college students having record turnout; 66%, according to CIRCLE, a Tufts University research center focused on youth voting in the 2020 presidential election.

In Ohio, however, only 59.2% of residents ages 18-24 were registered to vote in 2020 and 51.8% actually voted, according to data from the U.S. Census. In comparison, 69.5% of voters ages 25-34 were registered to vote, along with 73.3% of the 35-44 age range, 78.8% of the 45-64 age range, and 84% of citizens aged 65 and older.

By running for the Ohio House, Lawrence hopes to remedy one of the largest deterrents from Gen Z participating in elections: a lack of representation from people in their age group. "The vast majority of our elected officials are above the age of the median population by a significant amount of years," he said. "There is such a large chunk of the population that is not being represented at all."

However, even when young people want to go out to vote, there may be outside factors that make it harder to do so. For example, COVID-19 made registering to vote more difficult for many, since they weren't able to do it in person.

"For a lot of people, including young people, there was confusion over the elections that took place during the pandemic," said Iris Meltzer, President of Ohio's League of Women Voters. "There's a whole slice of a couple of years' worth of high school and college students that did not have the opportunities usually afforded them to register to vote."

The pandemic also increased the demand for absentee voting, which was not widely available in some states. In Ohio, all citizens could register for absentee voting, but it required sending an application by mail, then filling out a ballot and returning it by mail.

"In 2020 we found that youth voter turnout was much higher (57%) in states that automatically mailed absentee ballots to registered voters than in states where people needed an excuse to vote absentee (42%)," said Alberto Medina, Communications Team Lead at CIRCLE, via email.

In addition, some younger voters simply have a difficult time making a decision about who they want to vote for.

"As adults, we assume that it's very easy, and of course you can figure out who you want to vote for, and it isn't that easy," said Meltzer. The League of Women Voters often visits high schools and colleges to help with voter registration.

"Interest in voting isn't some innate quality, it must be taught and nurtured by creating a culture in which youth can develop their voice," added Medina.

Adding to the confusion is changes in the election dates. Because Ohio's electoral maps were held up in court due to a lawsuit over redistricting, the state held a second round of primaries on Aug. 2, covering races and issues that didn't make it to the March primary ballot. Lawrence believes this had an impact on how many people voted during the second round.

"That's why voter engagement here in Butler County was at 6%, because nobody knew that there was an election," he said. "So again, that's the problem that you have with the ruling majority in this state."

Although these issues deter young voters, recent events like the Supreme Court's overturning of Roe v. Wade have the chance to inspire them to come to the polls in larger numbers. In the August primary, for example, Kansas voted to protect abortion rights in the state by a 58.9% majority, despite being a primarily red state.

"We have a supermajority in the Ohio Statehouse of people who are wanting to take away women's rights and that healthcare decision," said Lawrence, referring to Republicans in Ohio's state Legislature. "So that's what I'm running on, to protect that, and that's what so many on our side are running on, because it's so important."



This collaboration is produced in association with Media in the Public Interest and funded in part by the George Gund Foundation.


get more stories like this via email

By Linda Burstyn for Ms. Magazine
Broadcast version by Roz Brown for New Mexico News Connection/Public News Service

Bad Business: Anti-abortion lawmakers harm companies operating in their states-so why are these radical politicians still receiving corporate funding?

When Georgia and Texas passed their draconian anti-abortion laws in 2019, Susan Lerner had a tough decision to make. As CEO and cofounder of the popular women's clothing line Michael Stars, she knew she might alienate a portion of her customers if she made a public statement against the laws. But her company's corporate identity was built around empowering women and girls, so she signed a public petition declaring her company's support for legal abortion.

It's not just a moral issue for Lerner, whose corporation has its support for women and girls displayed prominently on its website. "Democracy and capitalism can't afford not to have women in the workplace," she says. "People want to buy from a brand that walks the talk."

Why is it so hard for other corporations to "walk the talk"?

Economic Havoc

"The attack on abortion is bad for business," says Bruce Freed, president of the Center for Political Accountability, an organization that tries to bring transparency to corporate political spending. "It has a chilling effect on the overall economy and society-an economy and society that need to be healthy in order for the companies to grow and thrive."

According to an extensive report conducted by the Institute for Women's Policy Research (IWPR), if all state-level abortion restrictions were eliminated, there would be an estimated half million (505,000) more women ages 15 to 44 in the labor force.

IWPR also estimates that state economies will lose $105 billion per year under abortion bans. And the states that stand to lose the most are the ones that have recently put bans in place: Texas will lose $14.6 billion per year, Florida will lose $6.6 billion, and Missouri will lose $5.3 billion.

"Abortion restrictions are going to depress economic growth and GDP [gross domestic product] by keeping women out of the workforce during their most productive years," explains Shelley Alpern, director of corporate engagement at Rhia Ventures, a socially conscious investment firm.

Of course, the women who will lose their jobs are not simply workers- they're also spenders. When states deliberately create conditions that reduce family incomes and bring more poverty to the customer base, it stands to reason that the impact will be felt by the companies within that state.

And there is no doubt that these laws bring poverty for the women who are denied abortions.

As Caitlin Myers, economics professor at Middlebury College and the author of the amicus brief in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization Supreme Court case, says: "The decision of when and whether and under what circumstances to become a mother is the single most impactful economic decision a woman will make in her lifetime."

A study from the University of California, San Francisco, that followed 1,000 women over the course of five years found that those who wanted an abortion and were denied one experienced an increase in household poverty that lasted at least four years, compared to similar women who were able to get the abortion they sought. Years after the abortion denial, those same women were more likely to not have enough money to cover basic living expenses and they had four times greater odds of living below the federal poverty level.

The study also found that after being denied an abortion, a woman's credit score lowered, her debt increased and she was more likely to stay in contact with a violent partner for the next five years rather than raise the child alone.

When a woman seeking an abortion is forced to bear a child, the costs to her and her family-and eventually the cost to the economy-can extend for a lifetime.

Tough to Attract Talent

Studies have found that because of the anti-abortion laws in states like Texas, Mississippi, Florida and Oklahoma, corporations will have a hard time finding top employees-women and men-who want to work there.

A survey by Tara Health Foundation and Morning Consult found that 97 percent of respondents who accepted a position that required them to relocate considered the social policies of that state before making their decision. By a 2- to-1 margin, employed adults said they'd prefer to live in a state where abortion is legal and accessible.

According to a Rhia Ventures report, 56 percent of college-educated women say they would not apply to a job in a state that has recently banned abortion, and 61 percent of women surveyed said they would be discouraged from taking a job in a state that has tried to restrict abortion.

"Studies show that majorities of men and women will cross these states off their lists," Alpern says. "Having employees who can't control their own family-planning trajectories means having a workforce where there's unexpected ... and elevated turnover. What you're going to see is a brain drain. Top talent from the best schools are not going to want to go work in those states."

Because the far-reaching health and legal ramifications of these laws have not yet been widely felt or realized, it's reasonable to predict that there will be a significant increase in the numbers of employees refusing to work in states with restrictive abortion laws as those ramifications become more widely known.

So Why Fund Anti-Abortion Lawmakers?

Some of the leaders of these major corporations may have a predisposition to support the Republican Party, no matter the consequences. For example, the senior executive vice president for external and legislative affairs at AT&T is Ed Gillespie, former chair of the Republican National Committee. It's not surprising that with Gillespie influencing corporate donations, AT&T is one of the biggest donors to Republican state legislators who are at the forefront of pushing the abortion bans.

For other companies, it's more complicated.

"The companies we talk to and the people we talk to there can't stand that so many stakeholder groups come to them to solve social problems," Alpern says. "[As they see it] they're there to make their widget of choice. But it's a different world now. There's no going back to the time when people don't look to corporations to solve social problems."

Will anything make corporations stop giving to these legislators? Perhaps consumer boycotts, employee and shareholder actions in protest and, of course, the eventual loss of profit will finally do the trick.

"What you'll see if this situation continues is that companies will think twice about expanding in an abortion-ban state and you'll see boycotts of these states when it comes to conventions and conferences," Alpern says. "What would be best for the country and for families would be for companies to use their voices to weigh in with lawmakers to say we can't remain here in a state that has these extremist policies about abortion. Corporations have been subsidizing these lawmakers and we're asking them to reverse course. It's for their own good."

And by the way, Michael Stars, the women's clothing company that advocated for abortion back in 2019? Since taking a stand, it has gained thousands of followers.

"We received so much support from customers when we went public with our support for the ERA and reproductive freedom," says Lerner, the cofounder. "They told us that they love buying our clothing, not only for its style and quality but also because they know they are supporting a company that shares their values."

This story was originally reported and written by Linda Burstyn for Ms. Magaine.