A hearing is set for today in the Republican-backed lawsuit against Nevada's new state legislative maps drawn based on the 2020 census results.

The plaintiffs are asking the court to block the new maps while their lawsuit to overturn them proceeds. That would keep the old district boundaries in place for the primary election in June. They also want the candidate filing period to be delayed, even though it already has begun.

Sadmira Ramic, a voting-rights attorney at the ACLU of Nevada, said the plaintiffs claim the current state legislative maps unfairly split voters in Pahrump.

"The argument that they make is the maps engage in partisan gerrymandering," she said, "and this is diluting the votes of Republican voters."

Attorneys for both sides declined to comment ahead of the hearing. The Nevada Redistricting Commission was charged with drawing districts of equal populations, while keeping communities together - and without diluting the voting power of minority populations.

Rebecca Gill, an associate professor of political science at the University of Nevada Las Vegas, said she thinks the new maps will stand. In 2019, she said, the Supreme Court refused to block gerrymandered maps, saying it is a state issue.

"I think this lawsuit is likely to fail because it deals with partisan gerrymandering," she said, "and the Supreme Court has already said that they aren't going to overturn maps for partisan gerrymandering."

Gill noted that the high court also just let some Alabama redistricting maps stand, despite accusations that the new boundaries show racial bias.

"The court just said in an Alabama case that it is too close to the midterm elections to do anything about the maps," she said, "and that was a case where the maps really were in violation of the law."

The plaintiffs in the Nevada case are not claiming racial gerrymandering. It's unclear when the judge will reach a decision.

It's no secret President-elect Donald Trump wants to fire thousands of federal workers.

But in a state like Maryland - home to the fourth-highest number of federal employees - they and their union are readying for a fight to protect their jobs.

Trump has said he wants to revive what's known as Schedule F - a policy that can strip civil servants of their protections and make them at-will employees, meaning they can be fired without cause.

Ottis Johnson, vice president of the American Federation of Government Employees District 14, said any drastic cuts to the federal workforce wouldn't just hurt union members.

He said Americans will feel the impact to services like Social Security and veterans' healthcare.

"You can't run the United States government the same way that you run Twitter," said Johnson. "We represent over 800,000 federal workers, and we can't remove 80% and still expect to be able to serve the American people with the same proficiency and knowledge that they have right now."

Trump has also picked billionaire Elon Musk and tech entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy to co-lead an informal effort to restructure the federal government.

The pair floated the idea of "large-scale firings" in an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal.

In 2020, Trump signed an executive order for Schedule F a few months before the end of his presidency. President Joe Biden then revoked it in his first month in office.

Johnson said the AFGE has reached out to the incoming administration to discuss the important work federal employees do, and has a legal team prepared to challenge firings.

He said a major reduction in the federal workforce would hurt efficiency.

"It will be affecting the American people as well," said Johnson. "How can you get your benefits when you don't have the people there that have been doing the work for all these years? And now you're down to a skeleton crew, which will not be able to put out the type of work that we have now with the workforce that is going forward."

More than 2 million people work for the federal government, and Maryland is home to more than 140,000 of those workers.

New York good government groups want a more robust state ethics commission.

The Commission on Ethics and Lobbying in Government came about in 2022 after the dissolution of the Joint Commission on Public Ethics. Watchdog groups want the agency to implement several measures to improve ethics, lobbying oversight and transparency.

Rachael Fauss, senior policy analyst for the advocacy group Reinvent Albany, said one recommendation is to have lobby reports include a lobbyist and client position on legislation.

"Right now, you don't know when you look at the lobby filings," Fauss pointed out. "What you see is that a person or a company lobbied on a bill, but you don't know if they were supporting or opposing it. We think that's crucial information for the public to have."

Other recommendations include fully electronic lobby filings and ethics disclosures, and publishing what ethics advice the commission gives to elected officials who seek it out. Fauss noted one challenge to implement changes is the commission's budget, which some feel needs to be an independent line item.

It is uncertain whether the changes can occur because the commission's constitutionality is being challenged by former Gov. Andrew Cuomo. He alleges the commission is too independent and the governor should have control of the body. The New York State Supreme Court agreed and declared it unconstitutional.

Fauss noted the Court of Appeals' decision will determine its future.

"If part of the court ruling allows it to exist in its current form until an amendment can be voted on, then I think it is less disruptive," Fauss explained. "The other option is that the Legislature or governor would have to change the commission structure under that new constitutional framework."

If a new ethics commission was established through an amendment, it would not come to fruition until at least 2027 or 2028 because the state Legislature has to pass an ethics commission bill in two consecutive legislative sessions before an amendment can be put before voters. Arguments in the case will be held on Jan. 7.


get more stories like this via email

The 2024 presidential election has raised complex emotions for incarcerated Ohioans, many of whom are unable to vote but remain deeply engaged in political discussions.

As a group often left out of political discourse, their views on the election reflect a broader desire for involvement in decisions that directly affect their lives.

Nicole Lewis, engagement editor for The Marshall Project, talked about the findings of its new survey of Ohio's incarcerated population.

"Many of the people who oversee the system are elected officials, sheriffs, judges, district attorneys," Lewis observed. "and so incarcerated people have a really unique perspective on how well the people in those roles are executing their jobs."

The presidential election held particular significance this year, with concerns about criminal justice reform, sentencing policies and who can participate in elections. Despite limited news access, many voiced strong opinions about candidates, especially former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris, a former prosecutor.

Lewis noted the broader implications of the political divide, especially in how those inside view figures like Trump and Harris.

"Many, many people told us, 'How can I move forward?'" Lewis reported. "'How can I believe that society would want me back if they're so willing to cast Donald Trump aside and make his felony convictions a complete disqualification for public office?'"

While people in prison in Ohio may not have had the opportunity to vote in the 2024 election, advocates said their voices and perspectives are crucial to understanding the political landscape. Their insights, shaped by years behind bars, are particularly relevant as more individuals regain the right to vote upon release and the effects of their views could shape the future of both criminal justice reform and electoral engagement nationwide.


get more stories like this via email