Welcome to the latest edition of The Expand Democracy 3, written this week by Eveline, with the support of Nivea and Rob. Every two weeks, we highlight promising pro-democracy ideas and local, national, and global news.
Expand Democracy is a charitable organization that depends on donations from people like you. If you’re enjoying this newsletter, please share it with a few people who might find it interesting. Thank you!
#1. Deep Dive - Ending The US Gerrymandering Arms Race
Source: Yale Insights
Across the country, states have broken all norms in an escalating cycle of mid-decade redistricting, redrawing maps outside of the usual post-Census process in ways that advantage one party or the other. This isn’t normal because redistricting traditionally happens once every ten years after the Census, which gives Members time to get to know and represent people in their district. In 2025, the White House pressed Republicans in states such as Texas and Missouri to redraw their maps. California Democrats, who successfully pushed for a state constitutional amendment to counter the Texas maps, have responded similarly. The escalation is far from over, with Republicans in more southern states like Florida poised to redraw maps, and Democrats pursuing new maps in states like Maryland and Virginia.
Since the Supreme Court abdicated any role in reigning in partisan gerrymandering, it is unlikely to end in 2026. When partisans have control, they can continuously adjust districts, and new states may participate, refining their maps if the projected outcomes are not achieved. The results of the 2026 election could also open up further gerrymandering opportunities. This dynamic not only distorts electoral competition but also deepens public distrust in the fairness of elections. While mid-decade remapping has historically been rare, it is increasingly attractive to lawmakers who see it as a tool for cementing power rather than reflecting communities.
As we head into the 2026 midterm election, this gerrymandering arms race shows just how broken our system of election maps has become. In a recent Daily Journal column, Trevor Potter, president of the Campaign Legal Center and former Republican chairman of the Federal Election Commission, explains that without national reform, the redistricting process has been weaponized by political actors and will continue to undermine voters’ ability to choose their representatives.
Potter’s core argument is that the US has backed itself into a redistricting system that rewards escalation over restraint. Because there are no enforceable national standards governing how congressional districts are drawn, partisan actors are incentivized to push the limits whenever political control shifts. Potter emphasizes that partisan gerrymandering remains widespread not because the Constitution allows it, but because Congress has failed to exercise its clear authority to regulate congressional elections. In the absence of federal rules, state legislatures retain enormous discretion, allowing them to redraw maps in ways that entrench power.
Potter also highlights how the erosion of guardrails has normalized practices that once would have been politically unthinkable. Even states with strong reform reputations or independent commissions are not immune when national power is at stake (i.e., California, as discussed). The result is a growing willingness to exploit procedural loopholes or override voter-approved reforms when they become inconvenient. While congressional reform proposals like the Freedom to Vote Act or the FAIR MAPS Act would establish uniform standards and ban partisan gerrymandering nationwide, Potter argues that continued congressional inaction has effectively green-lit the current arms race.
The current redistricting regime is broken because it relies on restraint in a system that structurally discourages it. There is nothing in federal law that prevents states from redrawing congressional maps every election cycle if they choose to do so. The once-normative expectation that maps are drawn only after the Census has no binding force, leaving stability entirely to political self-control. Pew Research reports how much of an outlier the US is in this way on the world stage. Without national standards that prioritize fairness, stability, and voter choice over partisan advantage, the redistricting system will continue to reward manipulation.
Compounding the problem, judicial oversight has narrowed just as partisan incentives have gotten worse. Since the Supreme Court’s decision in Rucho v. Common Cause, federal courts have largely stepped back from adjudicating partisan gerrymandering claims, pushing disputes into state courts and legislatures. This has created a fragmented landscape in which outcomes depend heavily on local political conditions rather than on consistent democratic principles. Some states pursue reform, others double down on partisan control, and the national balance of power increasingly hinges on who is willing to manipulate the rules most aggressively.
Taken together, these efforts show that while there is no single coordinating national campaign yet, there is a growing push to confront the redistricting crisis because without clear federal standards, even the strongest institutions are forced into reactive battles over a durable national solution. This is a rapidly evolving area that will be affected by upcoming Supreme Court rulings, but here are some important resources for how Congress could act to address the problem:
The Brennan Center runs a redistricting and fair-representation campaign focused on ending partisan gerrymandering and strengthening protections for communities of color, including legal and policy reforms. In addition, they maintain a national litigation tracker that summarizes challenged maps and ongoing redistricting cases and are co-leading lawsuits and legal interventions on voting rights that indirectly shape the redistricting landscape (e.g., challenging executive actions that affect election processes).
Common Cause has a Mid-Decade Redistricting: Democracy on the Line campaign, with published fairness criteria to evaluate maps and mobilize action statewide.
FairVote works with Members of Congress like Don Beyer and Jamie Raskin on the boldest proposal, the Fair Representation Act, which would have a sweeping impact by requiring all states with more than one seat to use proportional ranked choice voting in districts that elect between two and five Members.
Collectively, groups like these are laying important groundwork. However, the fact that this work is still fragmented underscores the need to seek common ground in the years to come to pass legislation that will put an end to the gerr[mandering wars.
#2. Spotlight - Washington State takes on political violence
L-R: Sarah Milgrim, Yaron Lischinsky, Brian Thompson, Charlie Kirk, Melissa Hortman, Mark Hortman are all recent victims of political violence in the US. Source: Decyphered
This week, Washington state lawmakers began deliberations on a sweeping bill aimed at protecting elected officials, candidates, election workers, and criminal justice participants from escalating threats and political violence. The legislation responds to the growing reality across the country that participation in public service increasingly comes with personal risk, like harassment, doxxing and threats at homes and public events. The bill is sponsored by Rep. Liz Berry, who has been outspoken about the need to address political violence as an issue that affects who is willing and able to serve. By strengthening both legal protections and practical security options, the bill seeks to lower the personal cost of democratic participation and ensure that fear does not drive people out of public life.
Last summer, we invited Rep. Berry and a Vote Mama leader to discuss this issue and the steps toward a national network of pro-democracy leaders. Their proposals were among the ideas that received the strongest support from the national network, underscoring both the levels of concern about the problem and the value of taking action.
Among its provisions, the bill would make harassment of elected officials a felony, expand access to Washington’s Address Confidentiality Program, and allow residential addresses to be redacted from public records, campaign finance filings, voter registration records, and property documents. It also authorizes state and legislative security assessments, creates new funding mechanisms for personal security measures, and clarifies that campaign and legislative funds may be used to cover proportional safety expenses.
Taken together, these reforms reflect a growing recognition that safeguarding democracy requires protecting the people who administer elections and serve in government. As we wrote about last year, political violence is a serious problem. We’ll keep pursuing this issue in the new year.
I was prepared to testify at the bill hearing yesterday, Jan 14th, before the House State Government and Tribal Relations Committee of the Washington State Legislature, but there was not enough time to hear from me and several national authorities. Here is what I was prepared to testify:
Chair and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Eveline Dowling, and I’m a senior fellow with Expand Democracy, a nonpartisan 501c3 nonprofit focused on strengthening democratic institutions. I am testifying about the value of HB 2333.
This bill is important because political violence and intimidation are actively shaping who is willing to serve in public life. When candidates, election officials, and legislators face harassment, doxxing, or threats tied directly to their public duties, democracy itself is harmed. People should not have to choose between public service and personal safety.
I want to underscore that these concerns are not theoretical. Last July, Rep. Liz Berry presented this policy framework to Expand Democracy’s Democracy Exchange Network, which is a national group of election officials, legal experts, advocates, and researchers. The proposal received exceptionally strong support in participant ratings, ranking among the highest of the 10 ideas presented to the network throughout the year. Participants praised its practicality, bipartisan viability, and clear focus on closing real safety gaps faced by public servants today. In addition, this idea was presented to a separate group of election administrators who found it so compelling and necessary that it brought some members to tears.
This bill takes a measured, responsible approach. It does not reduce transparency or accountability. Instead, it protects residential addresses, enables security assessments, and allows reasonable, proportional use of funds for personal safety, all while tied directly to threats arising from someone’s role in public service.
Protecting the people who run elections and serve the public is essential to protecting democracy itself. Thank you for considering this bill.
#3. Timely Links
“How the Supreme Court Broke Congress”: In the Atlantic, Stanford fellow Duncan Hosie writes, “Two dynamics are fundamentally reshaping the structure and functioning of the American government. The first, which is quite well known, is Congress’s decline. The second, perhaps somewhat less appreciated but no less significant, is the Supreme Court’s ascent—its expansion of its power into areas previously thought to be off-limits… Whereas polarization weakened Congress, it emboldened the Court to dismantle laws and, in the process, undermine Congress’s ability to make laws at all, reinforcing Congress’s sclerosis.”
“Minneapolis and the narrative election – When reality itself becomes contested”: Larry Schack in Crystal Ball: “(1) The killing of Renee Good in Minneapolis, and the immediate, starkly divided reactions to it, illustrate how Americans now disagree not just over policy, but over basic facts, even with video evidence available to all. (2) Our post-election research found that the strongest predictors of voting behavior in 2024 were not traditional policy positions but comprehensive narratives about what the Trump administration would mean for America, with 75-80 point gaps between Harris and Trump voters. (3) When citizens adopt wholesale partisan narratives, democratic prerequisites—navigating complexity, engaging across differences, balancing individual and collective interests—become nearly impossible to sustain.”
Video - “How proportional representation could end gerrymandering”: From Protect Democracy: “Under our winner-take-all electoral system, when only one person can win in a district, manipulating district lines can secure the minimum amount of votes one candidate needs without actually competing for every vote. But there’s a solution. In proportional representation systems, districts are larger and each one elects multiple representatives. The party with the most votes still gets the most seats, they just can’t shut others out.”
New York City bill for all-candidate elections with ranked choice voting: From Staten Island Live: “Under the legislation introduced by South Shore Republican Frank Morano, candidates for office like mayor, public advocate, borough president and City Council would appear on ballots without their political parties listed. Municipal elections would also be conducted entirely on a ranked-choice basis similar to how primary and special elections are currently held. ‘New York City is one of the most diverse cities in the world, yet we run our elections under a structure designed for a very different era,’ Morano said.”
“How gerrymandering and authoritarian trends threaten 2026 elections”: Sam Wang in the Fulcrum writes: “At the Electoral Innovation Lab, we are building on our 2024 tool, Vote Maximizer, to develop a resource to help defend elections. By identifying close districts, counties with vulnerable populations, and states with close statewide races, we will show you where you can make the most difference to protect fair elections. That tool will be ready for use by mid-2026. .. And wherever you are, you can also help safeguard your local elections by being a poll worker or by helping local, nonpartisan good-government organizations.”
“Transparent Election Initiative files new plan to stop corporations from political spending”: From the Daily Montanan: “ Less than 48 hours after the Montana Supreme Court stopped a first-of-its-kind constitutional measure that would prohibit corporations from spending money on political candidates or ballot issues, the Transparent Election Initiative in Montana resubmitted a revised proposal that its leaders said honored the court’s ruling and simplified the motion.The organization also submitted a similar measure for a statutory initiative.”
Steven Hill critiques Larry Jacobs’ papers on ranked choice voting: Steven Hill writes in Democracy SoS. “ Jacobs has been an esteemed political scientist for decades, so this poor quality study steeped in misinformation and cherry-picking is puzzling. A number of the studies he cited actually refute his conclusions. Despite its clear flaws and poor reliability, Jacobs’s study has been quoted and linked to in various media articles. Unfortunately, media outlets these days do not have substantial research or deep reporting budgets, and have tight deadlines too, so journalists often cite the conclusions of academic studies without reviewing the actual studies themselves for accuracy or even common sense.”
“Why we fall for narcissistic leaders”: Adam Grant writes in the New York Times “Countries with more female legislators are less likely to go to war, and peace agreements involving women are 35 percent more likely to last at least 15 years. In the early stages of the pandemic, countries and U.S. states led by women had lower Covid-19 fatality rates, in part because they did a better job showing both confidence in their plans and empathy for people’s pain. And organizational psychologists have found that when male leaders are stressed, they’re more likely to be hostile and abusive…The responsibility of leadership is too important to entrust to arrogant people. Narcissistic leaders deny their weaknesses and make themselves weaker. Humble leaders admit their weaknesses and make themselves stronger. Great leaders overcome their weaknesses and make us all better.”
Civic Learning Week National Forum (March 11-12): In-person in Philadelphia and via streaming, ICivic has an impressive forum scheduled, with speakers including Jill Lepore, Danielle Allen, and Akhil Amar.
Safeguarding Democracy project has online program: Led by Rick Hasen, the Safeguarding Democracy Project at UCLA Law “promotes research, collaboration, and advocacy aimed at ensuring continued free and fair elections in the United States.” Upcoming webinars with a legal focus address voting by mail (Jan. 27), election contests (Feb. 26), voting machines and risk-limiting audits (March 19), and the role of the courts (April 9).