Mediaboss Marketing

On July 21, Alabama Republicans blatantly ignored a federal court order and enacted a congressional map with only one majority-Black district when two are required. This flagrant defiance is almost certain to result in a court-appointed special master redrawing the states congressional map before the 2024 election, but Alabama is not the only state where maps could be redrawn before the next federal election.

In close national elections like the 2022 midterm elections, the outcome of litigation can have a huge impact on the final results. The decisions of courts in redistricting litigation contributed to the Republican Partys current margin in the U.S. House of Representatives. With 12 congressional maps still subject to litigation and at least 40 districts at issue, decisions in these cases stand to impact control of the House in 2024 and beyond.

In federal court, pro-voting forces across the deep south are fighting congressional maps that dilute the voting strength of minority voters. In Texas, seven consolidated federal lawsuits are attempting to ensure voters of color have the opportunity to elect a candidate of their choice. Many of these cases bring claims under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA), which was recently upheld in the U.S. Supreme Courts decision in Allen v. Milligan. In state courts, another bucket of lawsuits challenge partisan gerrymandering, unconstitutional processes and more.

Ongoing congressional redistricting litigation has the potential to determine how communities are represented in states across the country, remedy discrimination in map-drawing and have implications for partisan gerrymandering claims.

According to Democracy Dockets database of over 600 lawsuits, there are currently 26 lawsuits across 12 states that challenge congressional maps; 20 lawsuits are pending in federal court and six cases are pending in state court.

Alabama has seven congressional districts that are currently represented by six Republicans and one Democrat in the House.In 2021, three lawsuits were filed challenging Alabamas congressional map.

Two of Alabamas congressional districts should be majority-Black districts per federal court order. Currently, only one district, the 7th Congressional District, is a majority-Black district.

Status: Alabamas congressional map should change before the 2024 election as the state was ordered by a court to include a second majority-Black district. The case is currently pending before a federal district court.

Allen v. Milligan

Allen v. Caster

Singleton v. Allen

The lawsuits were eventually consolidated but only two lawsuits bringing claims under Section 2 of the VRA were appealed up to the U.S. Supreme Court. On June 8, 2023, the Court upheld Section 2 and affirmed a lower court ruling that required Alabama to draw a congressional map with a second majority-Black district. The Republican-controlled Legislature did not comply, so the map will likely be redrawn by a special master appointed by a federal district court.

Arkansas has four congressional districts. All four districts are currently represented by Republicans in the House.

Two separate lawsuits are pending in different court levels regarding Arkansas congressional map.Both lawsuits challenge the composition of Arkansas 2nd Congressional District.

Status: The U.S. Supreme Court will issue a decision next term in Simpson v. Thurston. Litigation is ongoing before the district court in Christian Ministerial Alliance v. Thurston.

Florida has 28 congressional districts that are currently represented by 20 Republicans and eight Democrats. Two lawsuits challenge Floridas congressional map: one in state court and one in federal court. Both of the lawsuits challenge the congressional map with a specific emphasis on Congressional District 5.

Status: Litigation is ongoing in both cases. A trial will be held in the state-level case from Aug. 21-August 30.

Common Cause Florida v. Byrd

Black Voters Matter v. Byrd

One lawsuit is ongoing in federal court and alleges that the map is unconstitutionally racially gerrymandered.

A different lawsuit in state court argues that the congressional map violates multiple provisions of the Fair Districts Amendment of the Florida Constitution by diminishing the ability of Black Floridians to elect their candidates of choice, particularly in northern Florida and the 5th Congressional District.

The Peach State has 14 congressional districts currently represented by five Democrats and nine Republicans in the House.Three lawsuits challenge Georgias congressional map.

One lawsuit (Common Cause) challenges the 6th, 13th and 14th Congressional Districts for being unconstitutional racial gerrymanders. Two lawsuits argue that the map should have an additional majority-Black congressional district in the western Atlanta metropolitan area.

Status: There will be a trial in one lawsuit (Pendergrass) on Sept. 5, 2023. Two lawsuits are awaiting decisions on summary judgment.

Kentucky has six congressional districts currently represented by five Republicans and one Democrat. One lawsuit challenges Kentuckys congressional map.

Status: This case is currently pending before the Kentucky Supreme Court.

Graham v. Adams

One lawsuit filed on behalf of a group of voters and the Kentucky Democratic Party challenges Kentuckys congressional map arguing that the map is a partisan gerrymander that favors Republicans and unnecessarily splits counties in violation of the Kentucky Constitution.

Louisiana has six congressional districts currently represented by five Republicans and one Democrat in the House. Two consolidated lawsuits challenge the states congressional map alleging that the map violates Section 2 of the VRA by diluting the voting power of Black voters. The plaintiffs ask for a second majority-Black district to be drawn.

Status: Louisianas congressional map is currently blocked and a hearing will be held from Oct. 3-5 to determine what steps will be taken to implement a remedial map for 2024.

Robinson v. Ardoin

Galmon v. Ardoin

In these consolidated cases, the plaintiffs won a preliminary injunction last year against the map and the creation of a second minority-opportunity district was ordered. That injunction was stayed by the U.S. Supreme Court pending the resolution of Allen; the case is now back before the district court.

New York has 26 congressional districts currently represented by 15 Democrats and 11 Republicans. One lawsuit challenges the process used to enact maps so it does not challenge specific districts. Instead, it requests that the congressional map be redrawn and submitted to the Legislature.

Status: On July 13, an intermediate appellate court ruled that the IRC must reconvene and redraw the congressional map. Republicans appealed the decision to the states highest court on July 25.

Hoffmann v. New York State Independent Redistricting Commission

New York voters filed a lawsuit against the New York State Independent Redistricting Commission (IRC) and its members alleging that the IRC failed to complete its mandatory redistricting duties and requesting that the IRC reconvene and draw a congressional map to submit to the Legislature.

New Mexico has three congressional districts all currently represented by Democrats.One lawsuit challenges New Mexicos congressional map.

Status: On July 5, the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled that partisan gerrymandering claims are justiciable under the New Mexico Constitution and sent the lawsuit back to the trial court to issue a decision in the case by October 1, 2023.

Republican Party of New Mexico v. Oliver

In 2021, the Republican Party of New Mexico, state Sen. David Gallegos (R), former state Sen. Timothy Jennings (D) and a group of Republican voters filed a lawsuit challenging New Mexicos congressional map drawn with 2020 census data. The plaintiffs ask the court to strike down the map and order the creation of a partisan-neutral map.

Ohio has 15 congressional districts that are currently represented by 10 Republicans and five Democrats.Two separate lawsuits filed by pro-voting parties challenge Ohios congressional map.

Status: Ohios congressional map was struck down two separate times, but now the case is currently pending before the Ohio Supreme Court after the U.S. Supreme Court vacated the Ohio Supreme Courts decision to strike down the map.

By Katy Shanahan, Democracy Docket Contributor

South Carolina has seven congressional districts currently represented by six Republicans and one Democrat. One lawsuit challenges South Carolinas congressional map. The plaintiffs challenged the 1st, 2nd and 5th Congressional Districts. In January 2023, a federal court struck down the 1st Congressional District for being an unconstitutional racial gerrymander, but kept the 2nd and 5th districts in place.

Status: A three-judge panel struck down the configuration of the 1st Congressional District and Republican officials appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which will hear the case in full on Oct. 11, 2023.

South Carolina NAACP v. McMaster

One lawsuit brought by the South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP argues that South Carolinas congressional map intentionally discriminates against Black voters and is an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.

Texas has 38 congressional districts currently represented by 25 Republicans and 13 Democrats. Seven consolidated lawsuits challenge Texas congressional map and advocate for fairer representation for voters of color including Latino, Black and AAPI voters.

Status: Disputes regarding discovery are ongoing. Once they are resolved, a trial will be scheduled.

Utah has four congressional districts. All four districts are currently represented by Republicans. One lawsuit challenges Utahs congressional map.

Status: An appeal is currently pending before the Utah Supreme Court.

League of Women Voters of Utah v. Utah State Legislature

The League of Women Voters of Utah, Mormon Women for Ethical Government and individual voters filed a lawsuit challenging Utahs new congressional map arguing that the new map is a partisan gerrymander that favors Republicans by cracking non-Republican voters across districts in violation of the Utah Constitution.

Rachel Selzer contributed to the research for this reporting.

Continue reading here:
Litigation That Could Impact Congressional Maps Before 2024 - Democracy Docket

Open this photo in gallery:

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau waits for a meeting of the North Atlantic Council to begin at the NATO Summit, on July 12.Adrian Wyld/The Canadian Press

In case anyone wasnt clear on how the Liberal government views the stakes in its battle against Google and Facebook, here is the way Prime Minister Justin Trudeau described them at a press conference last week, after Facebook started blocking Canadian news media on its platforms, and Google threatened to do the same:

Journalists should be paid for their work they do serving our democracy. Canadians have a long history of standing up to bullies, and Facebook made the wrong choice in attacking Canada. We defend democracy around the world. Its what were doing by supporting Ukraine. Its what we did in the Second World War. Its what we do at the United Nations every day. We are there to defend the principles and values of democracy.

Our response is twofold. One, wow. Mr. Trudeaus rousing defence of our way of life may be lacking a bit of perspective. And two, could we get a little more of that enthusiasm for democracy right here at home?

Here are nine things Mr. Trudeau can do to defend the principles and values of democracy without leaving Ottawa, spending much money or storming the private beaches of billionaire tech CEOs:

Read more from the original source:
Globe editorial: There must be (at least) nine more ways for the Liberals to defend democracy - The Globe and Mail

Ukraine must prepare now to ensure democracy isnt crushed by the necessary restrictions of wartime.

Once the war is over, and Ukraine has restored its territorial integrity, the country will be focused on reconstruction and getting back to normal life. This will mean returning to full democracy, with clear and protected free speech and political competition.

Since Russias full-scale invasion began on February 24, 2022, Ukraine has been under a state of martial law. The Constitution explicitly forbids holding elections or attempting constitutional changes while this remains in force. Until complete victory is secured, all our efforts must be put into defeating the invaders. However, there is increasing concern that aspects of our democracy are under threat.

The war and occupation of parts of Ukraine have had a destructive effect on the countrys political infrastructure, and our ability to conduct the business of democracy hasbeen undermined. Our people are scattered (more than 6.3 million have fled to other European countries and 5 million more are internally displaced), our institutions are strained and our democracy is under attack from a neighbor determined to destroy it.

Others have been less lucky. One million Ukrainians have been kidnapped and deported to Russia, whilearound 9,000 civilianshave been murdered in blatant acts of ethnic cleansing and Russification (this number is an extremely low estimate given the 20,000 deaths in Mariupol alone), a plague that has ravaged Ukraine since the time of the Tsars.

These people are forever Ukrainian, regardless of their location, and are still at the core of our nation. Yet they cannot participate in the democratic processes set out in our constitution.Acombined system of majoritarian and proportional democracy such asourssimply cannot function if a massive section ofthepopulation is unable to vote.

This has been caused by A range of issues stemming from the invasion. For example, the mechanisms for voting when abroadare simply not there, and mostof our embassies do not have the capacity to deal with the Ukrainian diaspora. In Poland alone, there are 2.3 million Ukrainians, anumber our embassy in Warsaw is unequipped to deal with.

Get the Latest

Sign up below to recieve updates on the latest news, events, and more.

Digital elections via Dia,an e-governance application developed by the Ministry of Digital Transformation, have been considered, but the constitution demands a secret ballot, which Dia cant ensure. Another problem with Dia is that sections of the population are unable or unwilling to use it, due to issues with internet access orpeople, particularly the elderly,being unfamiliar with the system.

It is clear that Ukraine will be unprepared for an immediate return to democracy after the war has ended. We will therefore need a transition period to properly reestablish the necessary infrastructure.

But democracy is not just voting, it is the manifestation of the collective will of a population, most clearly expressed through the right to free speech. While we are at war we cannot forget that suchasacred institution may be used by rogue elements to damage thenation.

As a result, our constitution forbids any peaceful meetings, rallies, marches, and demonstrations while the countryisunder martial law. The warhasnot only chained the hands of democracy but silenced its voice.

The government fought against this deficit by launching United News, a program shown on several channels since the day of the full-scale invasion. It provides 24/7 access to information concerning the war but has led to questions over democratic representation. Servant of the People, the ruling party, takes up a disproportionate amount of airtime, and other parties have been sidelined. In the second quarter of 2023, out of 100 appearances in the marathon, 68 were made by Servant of the People compared to only four each by European Solidarity or the Holos party The ruling party thus appears to be using the primary source of news in Ukraine to further its political goals.

The Russian invasion has not only ravaged our country and our people through fear and flame, it has also damaged our ability to conduct democracy and debate.This war isstealing the peoples voice and their ability to participate in democracy by scattering, imprisoning, and murdering them.

We must drive back the enemy for a full return to democracy and progress. The war for our country and the war for our democracy are one and the same.

I understand there are issues around balancing security and freedom, as well as the difficulty of fighting a war and conducting a fully democratic process at the same time, but the fact democracy has become difficult means we must fight all the harder to defend it.

There must now be a sustained effort to secure our democracy in the present to ensure we have it in the future.

Oleksii Goncharenko is Member of Parliament for Odesa and represents the European Solidarity group.

Europes Edgeis CEPAs online journal covering critical topics on the foreign policy docket across Europe and North America. All opinions are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the position or viewsof the institutions they representor the Center for European Policy Analysis.

Read More From Europe's Edge

CEPAs online journal covering critical topics on the foreign policy docket across Europe and North America.

Here is the original post:
Ukraine's Democracy Is the Point of Our War Against Russia - Center for European Policy Analysis

Media Contact 202-226-8467

Washington, D.C. House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Michael McCaul (R-TX) and Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Menendez (D-NJ) issued the following statement on the recent threats to Guatemalas democracy following certification of the June 25 first-round presidential election results.

We firmly support the Guatemalan Supreme Elections Tribunals (TSE) certification this week of the results of the June 25 presidential elections, which was independently verified by the Organization of American States as having no serious irregularities. In light of the TSEs decision, however, we are deeply concerned by the Guatemalan Attorney Generals Offices attempt to illegally revoke the legal status of the political party of an opposition candidate in advance of the countrys August 20 runoff presidential elections. The Attorney General Offices decision is a blatant attempt to undermine the will of the Guatemalan people that attempts to circumvent the electoral certification made by the TSE and violates Guatemalas electoral laws.

The people of Guatemala must be able to elect their next president without interference, and the second round of presidential elections must take place on August 20with the top two candidates supported by the Guatemalan people in the first round. We stand with the Guatemalan people in their peaceful demonstrations in support of the integrity of their countrys democratic institutions, and will continue to closely monitor and respond to further attempts to jeopardize the credibility and fairness of the countrys electoral processes.

As the lead Republican on the Northern Triangle Enhanced Engagement Act, McCaul also calls on the Biden administration to make full use of the Section 353 sanctions authorities in response to the undemocratic and corrupt actions taken by Guatemalan political actors.

###

See original here:
Chairmen McCaul, Menendez Statement on Recent Threats to ... - House Foreign Affairs Committee

What would it take for China to gain the upper hand in a potential confrontation over Taiwan? Interrupting American telecommunications would be a good start. So the recent news that China successfully infiltrated critical telecommunications systems in Guam home to an American airbase that would be central to any potential confrontation over Taiwan raises urgent questions about Americas cybersecurity and that of its key allies.

Cyber competition and preparation for cyber warfare is at the forefront of the contest between the United States and its democratic partners, on the one hand, and authoritarian adversaries such as China and Russia on the other. And just as autocracies support each other in their malign activities in the digital space, America must lead a coordinated campaign to shore up cybersecurity within the democratic world.

Coupled with direct attacks on American assets, China and Russia use cyber-attacks to undermine the internal politics and institutions of U.S. allies and democratic partners. Pro-Kremlin hackers recently used distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attacks to crash Frances National Assembly website and Polish e-government websites. Pro-Beijing actors have increasingly integrated cyberattacks and disinformation campaigns. Last year, after U.S. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosis visit to Taiwan, cyber attackers disabled the website of the Taiwanese presidents office and its Ministry of National Defense, and propagandists spread disinformation about the Taiwanese governments actions aimed at undermining confidence in the governments handling of the coronavirus pandemic. RedAlpha, a hacking group linked to China, has consistently targeted civil society groups that the Chinese Communist Party calls the five poisons: Tibetans, Uyghurs, Taiwanese, democracy activists, and the Falun Gong.

These activities have already proven to be incredibly disruptive and destructive. A more aggressive campaign could be used to devastating effect in the event of an international crisis, such as a Chinese invasion of Taiwan, or as a means of interrupting core governmental functions, such as attacks on the machinery of elections. Absent a strategy and associated resourcing to prevent, mitigate, and counter cyber-attacks, China and Russia will continue using existing and evolving tools from DDoS to generative AI to support autocrats and weaken our democratic allies.

Important Steps

The United States has taken important steps to address this threat generally and with respect to democracy assistance in particular. The State Department established a Bureau of Cyberspace and Digital Policy, including a unit on International Cyberspace Security (ICS), with the goal of using foreign assistance funding to build cybersecurity capacity globally. The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) created its Cyber Cavalry, a mechanism that leverages Americas private sector to deliver cybersecurity technical support to the agencys democracy-building partners and beneficiaries abroad particularly those threatened by malign actors and influences.

While such initiatives represent a step in the right direction, they are far from sufficient. For example, even though 98 percent of the USAID budget is earmarked, or directed for a specific purpose, none of these pre-allocated funds are dedicated for cybersecurity. This means the United States has little, if any, resourcing available to support a strong defensive posture for partners to prevent attacks in the first place. And while the United States has implemented and allocated some resources for cybersecurity assistance to allied governments (through USAID as well as the Department of Defense) and, to a less extent, to vulnerable NGOs, the assistance level needs to be substantially higher and matched equally with a more intentional and more coordinated approach to cyber defense.

Simply put, the U.S. approach to protecting its partners against cyber threats has not kept pace with the scale and scope of cybersecurity challenges. The lack of sustained funding has made it difficult for the United States to develop a forward-looking, coordinated strategy and operational plans with local partners to not only respond to attacks but, more importantly, to firm up defensive posture for future deterrence. To change this, Congress and the relevant agencies and departments within the U.S. government should consider four specific measures.

Sustained and Predictable Funding

To begin with, policymakers must find a way to allocate sustained and predictable funding to bolster the cybersecurity capabilities of key democratic allies, with an emphasis on those in the Global South that lack the required resources or capacity. This could involve Congress establishing a fund that would support partner governments and civil society organizations with their cyber defenses or augmenting existing democracy and governance resources.

Second, the United States can help partner nations strengthen their domestic laws and regulations to improve cybersecurity. Such interventions could support executive branch institutions, judicial institutions, and legislatures, as well as bolster awareness and training within political parties and civil society. (Full disclosure: our organization receives U.S. government funding to implement democracy and governance projects.) Subsequent support could be provided to ensure implementation across national and subnational governments. The U.S. House Democracy Partnership, a congressional diplomacy initiative, could leverage its global platform to spotlight and share comparative examples of quality cybersecurity frameworks with allied governments for consideration and adoption.

Third, the United States should require that the information systems of all partners and implementers meet or exceed minimum standards and requirements for best practices. That might mean, for example, accelerating movement to secure cloud services, and ensuring investment in technology and personnel to match these goals. This could involve an Executive Order applying to foreign aid comparable to that on improving the cybersecurity of the United States. To address resource and capacity constraints, partners should adopt a risk-based approach which prioritizes the most critical assets and systems.

Finally, to understand the threat landscape better, the United States can encourage partner governments and organizations to increase the sharing of cyber incident and threat information. This could include a more coordinated and centralized cataloging of incidents, tactics, and countermeasures. The U.S. should also engage directly with civil society organizations and activists who often are in the crosshairs of China, Russia, or the autocrats they enable to inform U.S. interagency cybersecurity working groups and promote information and resource sharing. These groups can share insights with the United States on the latest tactics the CCP or Kremlin are using to infiltrate their organizational technology infrastructure, which the United States can then use to inform tool and resource development.

The cyber domain is pivotal in the contest between democracies and autocracies. As leader of the free world, it is past time for the United States to spearhead a robust effort to inoculate the democratic world against the predations of its adversaries.

Authoritarianism, China, civil society, congressional authorization, Cyber, Cybersecurity, Democracy, Digital Authoritarianism, Foreign Aid/Foreign Assistance, governance, Russia

Read more:
In the Contest Between Democracy and Autocracy, the US Must ... - Just Security