Lea County in southeast New Mexico has joined a previously-filed lawsuit asking that a redistricting map be thrown out.

The state's Republican Party filed the original lawsuit in January - arguing Democrats are favored in the state's three newly drawn congressional districts.

This year's process marked the first time in 30 years that Democrats controlled both chambers of the Legislature and the Governor's office. Adam Podowitz-Thomas - senior legal strategist for the Princeton Gerrymandering Project - reviewed the state's map for the project.

"All three districts are pretty competitive," said Podowitz-Thomas, "compared to some other states where we saw districts that are packed for one side or other, so there's really no chance of them ever changing hands. At least these districts could flip hands."

Redistricting takes place every 10 years using updated U.S. Census data.

In 2012, a New Mexico district judge drew new election boundaries for congressional and legislative seats after the Republican Governor vetoed a redistricting plan drafted by a Legislature controlled by Democrats.

Prior to the undertaking, New Mexico's lawmakers established a seven-member Citizen Redistricting Committee to conduct public hearings, receive public testimony and develop the maps. But unlike neighboring Colorado, the committee had no binding authority and Democrats drafted their own map.

Podowitz-Thomas said partisan maps are becoming more common largely due to improved technology.

"The map-drawing software that people have access to now is so much more sophisticated than it's been in the past," said Podowitz-Thomas. "You can really make minute changes to maps and tell almost immediately what the difference is going to be for the full decade's worth of performance."

Gerrymandering has long been used for partisan gain. But doing so in a way that disadvantages people based on race violates the Voting Rights Act.

Podowitz-Thomas said nonetheless, gerrymandering was pervasive nationwide.

"Just how aggressively states moved to sort of take away minority communities' ability to elect candidates," said Podowitz-Thomas, "I wasn't expecting them to be maybe quite as aggressive as they were, and that was sort of surprising to me."

As Ohio heads into a pivotal election season, the divide between rural and urban voters might seem deep - but one expert says the gap isn't as wide as it appears.

An upcoming webinar on "Understanding Rural Voters" will dive into what brings voters from different backgrounds together. One of the presenters, Elizabeth Currid-Halkett, James Irvine chair in urban and regional planning and professor of public policy at the University of Southern California, said rural and urban voters share common ground on many important issues.

"Their values are very much aligned on the basics," she said. "We all care about the environment. We care about our families. We hope for a better future for our country. We believe in democracy."

Research from Ohio's John Carroll University confirms that both rural and urban Ohioans care deeply about issues such as family, faith and preserving their communities. Despite what's often portrayed in the media, they share similar concerns about social policies and the environment.

Currid-Halkett also pointed to a lack of accessible, reliable news sources that she said makes it harder for many people, especially in rural areas, to see beyond the political divide.

"If we had easier access to understand varying political perspectives," she said, "we might, one, realize we aren't so divided, and two, we might get a sense of why people think differently than us. But it's very hard to do that in the current way we get media."

She said it doesn't help that so many online media outlets have paywalls that restrict access to their content.

The webinar, coming up Oct. 21, will feature experts from across the country, providing insights into how folks with different political perspectives can better understand each other. Registration is free on the USC Price School of Public Policy website.

Voting may be a bit more confusing than expected in Utah this year, as two of the four amendments on the ballot have now been voided.

The Utah Supreme Court nixed Amendment D, which would have allowed state lawmakers the power to change voter initiatives and prohibit "foreign influence in the initiative process." And this week, a Third District Court judge also voided Amendment A, which would have allowed state income taxes to be used for needs other than public education.

A new report from the Utah Foundation examines each of the four amendments. Annalisa Holcombe, the foundation's board chair, said information is power, especially around election time "because we know how important it is to provide clarity around public policy issues that affect us and the state of Utah as voters, and to have an independent, nonpartisan view of these amendments."

Amendments A and D will remain on the ballot, but won't be counted. Instead, voters will weigh in on Amendments B and C. Amendment B would increase the limit on annual distributions from the State School Fund to public schools from 4% to 5%, and Amendment C would require counties to elect a sheriff every four years. Both face little to no opposition.

Utah Foundation President Shawn Teigen described some of the information surrounding the amendments as "misleading" and unclear about the real issues at hand. Teigen said the topics of both Amendments A and D are likely to make a comeback in the future, and encourages people to learn more about these issues now.

"There's a chance to educate some folks here, to give people a little bit of information," he said, "so that when and if these come back that we'll have something to fall back on, in terms of some past education."

The report also explains that enacting amendments and changing the Utah Constitution is a long and complex process. Constitutional amendments have to pass the Utah Legislature by 66% and then be ratified by 50% of the public. By contrast, most Utah laws pass with a simple majority of legislators.

The Indiana Citizen, a nonpartisan voter information platform, aims to improve civic engagement in Indiana by helping voters make informed choices. The publication's "virtual ballot" provides unbiased, accessible information on candidates and issues.

Publisher Bill Moreau emphasized the state's need for better civic health.

"One of the things that we wanted to address," he said, "is this chronic civic health crisis that Indiana is mired in - a whole wide range of metrics, voter registration, turnout and civic literacy - where voters can go and become informed voters."

Moreau highlighted its commitment to younger voters. The platform has facilitated more than 2,400 new voter registrations and now focuses on providing these first-time voters with detailed information. By inputting their address, users can see a personalized ballot featuring profiles of candidates for offices ranging from the presidency to local school boards.

Moreau underscored the importance of sharing accurate data, especially amid widespread misinformation. The Indiana Citizen's profiles pull from diverse sources, including candidates' own websites, and sometimes media reports on candidates' past issues, such as DUIs, to present a comprehensive picture.

Moreau said now that information is assembled, it's focusing on getting it into voters' hands.

"We're going to actively use social media and digital advertising to get right to them," he said, "and say, 'OK, now that you're registered, here's access to information about the candidates and the issues.'"

The Indiana Citizen collaborates with Free Press Indiana and Franklin College's Statehouse File to ensure voters have access to the information.


get more stories like this via email