One of Donald Trump’s favorite politicians is the Hungarian authoritarian leader Viktor Orbán. Would a country led again by Trump embrace similar antidemocratic politics?
Electoral redistricting is a high-stakes political game, so Democrats and Republicans have a hard time playing fair. When they’re made to work together, a more representative result is possible.
An upcoming Supreme Court case that turns on race and party could affect how state legislatures shape voting maps and how Americans vote for decades to come.
Why do government policies sometimes fail to reflect the public will? The answer begins with the design of the US government system, forged in the 18th century.
A doctrine embraced by some conservatives could be adopted by the US Supreme Court. And if the court does, Americans’ political power will be dramatically limited.
A ruling by the US Supreme Court to allow unlawful maps to be used in the midterm elections will affect who gets elected to the House of Representatives and may determine control of Congress.
Justices declined GOP requests to block court-approved congressional maps in North Carolina and Pennsylvania. But justices punted a bigger question over the role of courts until after the midterm elections.
Alabama will be allowed to keep a congressional map that critics say disadvantages Black voters. That does not bode well for 2022 midterms, argues a law scholar.
The results of the latest round of redistricting have advanced the anti-democratic trend where elected leaders choose their voters, undermining representative government.
An 1850 act permitted the creation of separate schools for Protestants, Catholics and for any five Black families. Some white people used the act to force Black students into separate institutions.
Managing Director of the McCourtney Institute of Democracy, Associate Research Professor, Political Science, Co-host of Democracy Works Podcast, Penn State