2126 Search Results Containing ":"
Charlotte Observer: NC court calls its role ‘the bedrock of our sacred system.’ Will US Supreme Court agree?
“This case has set a clear precedent for redistricting in North Carolina,” said Bob Phillips, executive director of Common Cause North Carolina, in a press release. “Voting maps must be free from gerrymandering and respect the right of North Carolinians to have a voice in choosing their representatives. Our districts belong to the people, not politicians.”
Found in: Common Cause
Editorial Roundup: Why SCOTUS Needs to Protect Democracy in Their Coming Moore v. Harper Decision
The U.S. Supreme Court heard our case, Moore v. Harper, on December 7. Their decision, expected next June, could change democracy forever, and not for the better.
Found in: Common Cause
New York Times: The Election Is Over. The Fight Over Voting Rules and Gerrymanders Isn’t.
Voting rights advocates are mulling whether to mount another dauntingly expensive ballot initiative to make the commitment to nonpartisan maps ironclad, said Catherine Turcer, the executive director of Common Cause Ohio. And the bar to success might get even higher. Republican legislators proposed a constitutional amendment last month that would raise the threshold for voter approval of constitutional changes to 60 percent of the vote, from the current simple majority. Republicans call it a move “to safeguard Ohio’s constitution from special interests” who pour money into initiative campaigns. Ms. Turcer called it an effort to shield the ruling party from anything that could dilute its control. “It’s clear these people are drunk on power,” she said. “And what do you do with those kinds of people? You take away their keys.”
Found in: Common Cause
MSNBC's "Symone" (VIDEO): Common Cause's Kathay Feng Discusses the Threat to Democracy Posed by the Supreme Court Case Moore v. Harper
“I think the reason Common Cause is fighting so hard to make sure everyday people understand what’s at stake in Moore v. Harper is that this is not just about who decides how lines are drawn for districts in North Carolina. This is fundamentally about our American democracy,” Common Cause's National Redistricting Director Kathay Feng tells Symone Sanders, host of MSNBC's Symone Show.
Found in: Common Cause
Politico: The Crypto Scandal Is Missing a Secret Ingredient
“It’s cross ideological,” says Aaron Scherb, who keeps an eye on Congress for Common Cause, the good-government watchdog group. “All sorts of crypto players throw their money around, to progressive causes, conservative causes.”
Found in: Common Cause
New York Times: Supreme Court Seems Split Over Case That Could Transform Federal Elections
When the court closed the doors of federal courts to claims of partisan gerrymandering in Rucho v. Common Cause in 2019, Chief Justice Roberts, writing for the five most conservative members of the court, said state courts could continue to hear such cases — including in the context of congressional redistricting. “Our conclusion does not condone excessive partisan gerrymandering,” he wrote. “Nor does our conclusion condemn complaints about districting to echo into a void. The states, for example, are actively addressing the issue on a number of fronts.” Seeming to anticipate and reject the independent state legislature theory, he wrote that “provisions in state statutes and state constitutions can provide standards and guidance for state courts to apply.”
Found in: Common Cause
McClatchy: Supreme Court hears NC case on elections, with big implications for 2024 and beyond
But the legislature’s opponents, led by Common Cause and Supreme Court litigator Neal Katyal, said there is far more historical precedent in favor of continuing the same set of checks and balances that have always been in place. Katyal also said the Supreme Court has been incredibly hesitant in the past to rule on state constitutional issues. Yet ruling in favor of North Carolina lawmakers in Moore v. Harper, he said, would render state constitutions toothless in every state in the country — at least when it comes to protecting voting rights. “Frankly I’m not sure I’ve ever come across a theory in this court that would invalidate more state constitutional clauses,” he said. He said that ruling in favor of Moore and the other state lawmakers could endanger state constitutional protections across the country, like guarantees of fair elections, or of secrecy at the ballot box. ... Katyal later told the justices there’s good reason for them to be confused. “We can’t tell you what we think (the legislature’s) theory honestly is,” he said. “What they just told you is the opposite of how they started out on page one of their brief.” Several of the court’s more conservative justices pushed back, suggesting that the legislature’s argument wasn’t as flawed as Katyal suggested. Clarence Thomas — the only current justice who endorsed this theory when it was raised unsuccessfully as part of the Bush v. Gore case in 2000 — pressed Katyal with numerous questions about legal precedent.
Found in: Common Cause
Newsweek: Clarence Thomas' Own Ruling Used Against Him in High-Stakes Election Case
During the oral arguments, Neal Katyal, an attorney for the Common Cause organization, brought up past remarks that the Supreme Court made in the Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board case. "And Justice Thomas, it's the same point picking up on Justice Kavanaugh's questioning. Palm Beach, the court said that sovereignty was at its apex when talking about state constitutions and interpretations by state courts," Katyal said. "This Court never second-guessed state interpretations of their own constitutions." In Katyal's remarks, he specifically mentioned page 78 of the Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board ruling, where the Court said, "It is fundamental that state courts be left free and unfettered by us in interpreting their state constitutions."
Found in: Common Cause
New York Times: Five Things You Need to Know About the Supreme Court Case That Could Radically Change Elections
Chief Justice John Roberts implicitly ruled out support for the theory in a landmark 2019 decision, Rucho v. Common Cause, which stated that partisan gerrymanders were political matters outside the purview of federal courts. “Provisions in state statutes and state constitutions can provide standards and guidance for state courts to apply” in outlawing partisan maps, he wrote, citing a voter-approved amendment to the Florida Constitution that forbids maps drawn with the intent to favor or disfavor a political party.
Found in: Common Cause
Washington Post: Supreme Court to consider fundamental change in elections authority
Legal battles over partisan and racial gerrymandering “are as North Carolina as barbecue, tobacco fields and hot, humid summer days,” says the executive director of the state Common Cause chapter. North Carolina Common Cause Executive Director Bob Phillips said there has not been an election since 1971 in which the state’s redistricting plans have not been challenged. “In the decade after the 2010 redistricting cycle , every single legislative and congressional election was run on maps that the courts eventually ruled unconstitutional,” he said in a briefing for reporters. “I’m not sure there are many states, if any, that can make that claim.” “It’s almost unfathomable to imagine what will be imposed on North Carolina citizens if our state courts are no longer a place where a bad congressional map can be challenged,” Phillips said.