Civic-engagement organizations in Alabama are calling for action against the state's new congressional map, which they say disproportionately impacts Black voters.

The court-appointed cartographer in the Alabama congressional redistricting lawsuit has withdrawn from the case, prompting a court directive for involved parties to propose three to five alternative cartographers.

The Supreme Court has previously instructed legislators to develop congressional maps with a minimum of two majority Black districts or a similar arrangement.

However, Angela Curry - executive director of United Women of Color - said the current proposed map continues to suppress Black voters.

"It's disheartening," said Curry, "but I have to lean into optimism, and hope, and gratefulness even, to the structure of our country that allows the Supreme Court to override a state who is clearly not going to follow what they've been instructed."

The map approved by the Alabama Legislature consists of seven districts, with one district having a majority of Black voters and another district in which about 40% of voters are Black.

Supporters argue that this map provides an opportunity for Black voters to elect leaders of their choice, although critics contend that it does not adequately represent the majority.

Stacker reveals that Black voters make up about 27% of Alabama's population, translating to one in five voters. Curry said this highlights the crucial role of advocacy in promoting voting rights.

As the journey toward voting equality continues, she said many advocates hope for a third party to spearhead the cause and ensure fair representation.

"And just hope that the Supreme Court rapidly comes up with a third party to redraw these maps," said Curry, "to ensure that black Americans in Alabama have that right to select their elector in two districts."

Plaintiffs are required to submit their objections to the federal district court by Friday in regard to the recently passed congressional map, which has received approval from Gov. Kay Ivey.

The ultimate decision now rests with the federal court, with a scheduled hearing set for August 14.

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




get more stories like this via email

Next month, newly elected candidates for many levels of government will be sworn in.

In North Dakota, civic engagement leaders hope there is a willingness to hear from the public and bolster voter turnout in future elections. Data from the Secretary of State show North Dakota had a voter turnout of 62% for the 2024 election, which is on par with 2020 but not as consistent with higher totals seen in the 1980s and '90s

Barbara Headrick, president of the League of Women Voters of North Dakota, said she is disappointed neighboring states such as Minnesota outperform in turnout. She feels North Dakota has suffered too much from races not being competitive enough.

"When there's not a contest to get people excited about, it's more likely that people will stay away," Headrick pointed out.

Republicans in North Dakota have maintained control over the Legislature and statewide offices. Headrick noted the League, which is nonpartisan, wants all parties to energize voters but she urged Democrats to broaden their appeal with the idea of creating more interest come election time. She also called on those in power to govern in a way to keep the entire electorate engaged and not just a party's base.

Headrick warned when voters become used to choosing one party to control an entire state, it eventually creates a recipe for bad governing overall.

"No matter how much the people who run for office are sincerely wanting to do what they think is best, all they're hearing is their own voices," Headrick contended.

Headrick argued a one-party scenario does not lead to meaningful policy debate, while also opening the door to issues such as corruption. Political experts said candidates often take their cues from voters but Headrick feels there are many people who do not want divisiveness and prefer compromise. She urged those individuals to speak up at public hearings and take advantage of other options to be engaged.


get more stories like this via email

A nonprofit leader from Missouri joined a national panel to tackle what they described as escalating threats to ballot measures and to develop strategies for their protection.

The panel, hosted by Ethnic Media Services, discussed how ballot measures, such as Missouri's 2020 Medicaid expansion, are crucial for health equity.

Richard Von Glahn, organizing director for Missouri Jobs With Justice, highlighted such measures as essential checks on the state Legislature.

"There have been years where ballot initiatives have not been very common and then there have been years where ballot initiatives have been very common," Von Glahn recounted. "I think that reflects on whether the Legislature is meeting the needs of our community."

Missouri allows citizens to propose ballot measures, including laws and constitutional changes, by gathering signatures. Voting on ballot measures in the Show-Me State has been in place since 1907, following Progressive Era reforms.

In the Nov. 5 Missouri election, Proposition A passed, affecting workers' rights. The measure will raise Missouri's minimum wage to $15 per hour by January 2026 and mandate paid sick leave for workers.

Von Glahn stressed the ballot measure will have a significant effect on the state's workers, particularly the paid leave provision, because one in three Missourians did not have paid time off.

"If you are already living check to check, the idea of taking an unpaid day in order to care for your health or your loved one's health, is an impossible choice," Von Glahn contended. "It means not being able to afford your groceries or an electric bill."

In recent years, Missouri has seen more ballot measures on health care, workers' rights and electoral reforms.


get more stories like this via email

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.