There has been a lot of consternation from a number of organizations over the last year about whether the California Citizens Redistricting Commission would be a diverse group.  Well, the final six were selected this week and hopefully the skeptics who have been critical of the Commission at every...

Pity the Poor Florida Taxpayers.  They are paying for both the legal defense of a ballot measure they passed in the last election as well as the lawsuit challenging it.  

On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral argument in two cases that raise a question that the court has struggled with for decades: to what extent can legislatures consider race when drawing congressional districts, particularly when race is used as a proxy for political ends? 

Who sits on the court matters to the health of our democracy.

CLC’s case, Whitford v. Gill, is on the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, and we hope that we can once and for all curb the practice of partisan gerrymandering. Before then, we’d like to debunk a number of myths about partisan gerrymandering with a dose of reality.

The Supreme Court’s decision, joined by six Justices, is a home run for voters. Virginia tried to make it harder for voters to bring racial gerrymandering claims, by allowing a state’s after-the-fact rationalizations to excuse blatant racial targeting. The Court refused to let that happen.

After an expedited FOIA request, a large document release, and three days of hearings, there still remain unanswered and unsettling questions about Judge Neil Gorsuch’s views on our fundamental right to vote.

Extremely distorted and gerrymandered districts, like Wisconsin’s State Assembly plan, have a real impact on people’s lives. When politicians manipulate state maps to hold on to power, they’ve essentially chosen their voters, and they no longer need to listen to the concerns of all their...

Support for redistricting reform spans the ideological spectrum, but it is difficult to take the line drawing process out of the hands of politicians.

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court took another step toward safeguarding the fundamental right of all Americans to have their vote count by announcing it would hear oral arguments in Gill v. Whitford, a case challenging Wisconsin’s State Assembly districts as an extreme partisan gerrymander. 

Campaign Legal Center (CLC) has conducted an analysis on the likely partisan implications of each plan and summarized that analysis in a memo released today. The goal is to provide a service that is helpful to the committees and the public in understanding the likely effects of the proposed plans.

In a time of rare bi-partisan consensus, the data shows Americans, from both major political parties, overwhelmingly support measures to limit partisan gerrymandering regardless of political affiliation. 

The U.S. Supreme Court has an opportunity this term in CLC’s Wisconsin partisan gerrymandering case (Gill v. Whitford) to rein in the pernicious practice of elected officials cherry picking their voters and silencing the voices of voters in the other party. Our democracy desperately needs the Court...

Campaign Legal Center (“CLC”) has filed two Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) requests to the Department of Justice and U.S. Census Bureau, seeking more information on ongoing deliberations about adding a citizenship question to the 2020 Census form.  CLC has asked for expedited processing and...

The Department of Justice’s (DOJ) request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census is an attempt to play politics with an important constitutional obligation that affects everyone living in the United States. In its rushed request DOJ claimed that the question was necessary to protect the...