SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
common cause
Judge Orders Trump Admin to Swear $1.8 Billion Slush Fund 'Is Not Happening'
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche has insisted that the plan to pay taxpayer funds to Trump allies is dead. But he hasn't said so under oath.
Jun 12, 2026
A federal judge may have dealt the final blow to President Donald Trump's $1.8 billion "weaponization fund" on Friday, indefinitely blocking it and ordering his administration to state unequivocally that it's no longer happening.
In the face of bipartisan backlash, acting Attorney General Todd Blanche had publicly backed off plans to use the money earlier this month, and a court temporarily blocked the transfer of the money to what opponents had dubbed a "slush fund" for Trump's supporters, including January 6 rioters who claim to be victims of government "weaponization" by the Biden administration.
But The Atlantic reported on Thursday that even as the US Department of Justice (DOJ) publicly swears that the payouts are dead, administration officials have been reassuring Trump's cronies behind the scenes that they'll get their checks and that the administration simply needs to wait for the legal blowback to die down or find an alternative way to award them the money, which was set to follow a DOJ-brokered settlement between Trump and his own Internal Revenue Service (IRS).
That may prove more difficult after Friday, however, when US District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema issued a preliminary injunction indefinitely extending her previous two-week pause on the fund.
She described the arrangement, to have taxpayer funds disbursed without court rulings to “an extremely small group” that many Americans feel engaged in “unacceptable” conduct, as "problematic."
The DOJ had attempted to have the case against the fund dismissed, arguing that it was now a moot point, since Blanche had publicly declared it dead. But Brinkema said, "The [government’s] mootness argument, in my view, doesn’t go anywhere.”
While the DOJ stated that the fund has “not been set up and is now not going forward," Brinkema noted that Blanche had declined to state that under oath, while Trump has publicly continued to champion the fund even as his administration has backed away from it.
During the hearing in the Eastern District of Virginia, Brinkema pressed DOJ lawyer Andrew Block on why, if the fund was truly defunct, the administration had not formally rescinded the order setting it up. He said he didn't know.
The judge gave Blanche, Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward Jr., and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, whose department would have overseen the fund, one week to sign a “clear, unambiguous” declaration stating under penalty of perjury that the fund is dead, and wrote in the order that they must affirm that it "will not proceed in any manner, or under any name."
She said in order for the lawsuit to be thrown out, the government needed to put it in writing because "we don’t have the kind of absolute certainty that this fund wouldn’t rear its head."
CEO @SkyePerryman and Senior Counsel Pooja Boisture break down our major slush fund win from court. pic.twitter.com/ngneLRsl8R
— Democracy Forward (@DemocracyFwd) June 12, 2026
Outside the courtroom, Skye Perryman, the president and CEO of Democracy Forward—the watchdog group that sued the DOJ—celebrated that the court had "put the brakes on Donald Trump's slush fund."
The group is representing several plaintiffs who say they'd be harmed if the fund were to be enacted.
They include a former federal prosecutor fired after leading January 6 cases; the city of New Haven, Connecticut, which has been targeted by the administration over its sanctuary policies; the National Abortion Federation, which says the fund could reward anti-abortion activists convicted of clinic-related offenses; and the watchdog group Common Cause, which argues that the opaque scheme could embolden January 6 defendants.
"We were thrilled that the judge understood the significant harm that our clients face as a result of the fund, as well as the American people," said Democracy Forward senior counsel Pooja Boisture. "We were thrilled that she got it right. She understood that this was not a partisan issue."
It remains unclear whether the order would stop the administration from pursuing other methods for rewarding Trump's allies. Reuters reported on Friday that his legal allies have discussed dusting off a 1946 law called the Federal Tort Claims Act, which would allow individuals to file administrative claims and lawsuits that could be settled out of court with a lot of flexibility for the government.
“The Trump administration cannot be trusted with the public’s money,” said Omar Noureldin, Common Cause’s senior vice president for policy and litigation. "We’ve successfully locked the president’s personal slush fund for now, and we’ll keep the pressure on until it’s shut down for good.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Critics Warn Polis Commuting Sentence of Tina Peters Sends 'Dangerous Message' Before Midterms
"Reducing her sentence sends the wrong message to those seeking to undermine trust in our elections, and it will do nothing to deter Donald Trump's illegal attacks on Colorado," said US Sen. John Hickenlooper.
May 15, 2026
Top Colorado Democrats and democracy advocates were among those expressing concern on Friday after Democratic Gov. Jared Polis commuted the sentence of Tina Peters, a former county clerk and 2020 election denier backed by President Donald Trump.
"Today, Gov. Polis delivered a victory to every person urging President Trump to seize control of elections in 2026," said Aly Belknap, executive director of the advocacy group Common Cause Colorado, in a statement. "By commuting Tina Peters' sentence, Gov. Polis dealt a massive blow to Colorado's ability to run its own elections and uphold its own judicial system."
"This decision sends a dangerous message that Colorado will tolerate criminal meddling in election systems and equipment when it is done to make a political statement," Belknap warned. "Authoritarians create martyrs out of people like Tina Peters to fuel outrage, mobilize supporters, and excuse lawbreaking in service of their agenda."
"But authoritarians cannot dismantle democracy on their own. They need powerful people to give them consent. Today, Gov. Polis gave President Trump that consent. This is a shameful day for Colorado," she added. "Gov. Polis' decision undermines election security, weakens accountability, and permanently stains his legacy."
Since returning to office last year, Trump has pardoned his supporters who stormed the US Capitol on January 6, 2021, fought for access to state voter rolls, said that Republicans "ought to nationalize the voting" in direct defiance of the Constitution, generated fear that he'll have federal agents surround polling sites in November, and even repeatedly suggested that the 2026 elections shouldn't be held at all.
Trump also gave Peters a symbolic federal pardon and pressured Polis—who is term-limited and set to leave office next January—to act on her case. The president was not able to free Peters from her nine-year sentence himself because a jury convicted her of state felonies and misdemeanors for her role in breaching election equipment in 2021.
After the governor's decision, which was announced alongside dozens of other pardons and commutations, and sets up Peters to be released from prison on June 1, the president wrote on his Truth Social platform, "FREE TINA!"
Peters also turned to social media on Friday, thanking Polis, apologizing for her "mistakes," and writing that "upon release, I plan to do my best through legal means to support election integrity and, based on my own personal experiences, to elevate the cause of prison reform."
In an interview with The New York Times, Polis denied trying to placate the president by freeing the former clerk. He said that "she committed a crime; she deserves to be a convicted felon," but "she was given an unusually harsh sentence."
As the newspaper detailed:
The governor's decision came after Mr. Trump cut hundreds of millions of dollars in federal money for Colorado, moved to dismantle a leading climate and weather research center in Boulder, rejected disaster relief for rural counties in the state that had been hammered by floods and fire, and vetoed an urgently needed water pipeline for rural Colorado.
In the interview, Mr. Polis pointed out that Mr. Trump had other grievances against Colorado, such as its mail-in voting system, and said he was not making his commutation decision with the expectation that Mr. Trump would undo his actions against Colorado.
"That's not something I ever considered," he said.
Meanwhile, Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold declared that "this clemency grant to Tina Peters is an affront to our democracy, the people of Colorado, and election officials across the country. The governor's actions today will validate and embolden the election denial movement, and leave a dark, dangerous imprint on American democracy for years to come."
US Sen. John Hickenlooper (D-Colo.) said that "Tina Peters is guilty as sin and a disgrace to Colorado. She tried to undermine Colorado's free and fair election system. When she was caught red-handed, she was prosecuted by a Republican district attorney and rightfully convicted by a jury of her peers. Reducing her sentence sends the wrong message to those seeking to undermine trust in our elections, and it will do nothing to deter Donald Trump's illegal attacks on Colorado. I strongly disagree with this decision."
Fellow US Senate Democrat Michael Bennet, who is running for governor, was similarly critical, saying: "I vehemently disagree with Gov. Polis' decision to commute Tina Peters' sentence. She broke the law, undermined our elections, and was convicted by a jury of her peers. With Trump continuing to attack Colorado, we must stand strong for our institutions and the rule of law."
David Becker, executive director of the Center for Election Innovation and Research, told Democracy Docket that "it's unfortunate to see the governor of Colorado succumbing to the bullying tactics of election conspiracy theorists. He has thrown state and county election officials, Republicans and Democrats, under the bus after they resisted the corruption Ms. Peters engaged in and withstood attacks for many years as a result."
Even another former Republican clerk—Matt Crane, who's now executive director of the Colorado County Clerks Association—sounded the alarm, arguing that "Tina Peters' actions have made life harder, not only for election officials here in Colorado, but make no mistake, for election officials all across the country. Her conduct became a rallying point for election conspiracy movements that fueled hostility and distrust towards the very people responsible for administering free and fair elections."
"Rather than standing with public service servants and defending one of our nation’s most cherished rights, the right to vote, Gov. Polis is bending the knee to the same political forces and conspiracy movements that are actively undermining confidence in our democratic institutions," Crane said. "That choice carries consequences far beyond this single case."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'The Constitution Is Clear and the Stakes Are High': Coalition Demands Congress Rein In Pro-War Trump
"From Greenland to Venezuela to Iran, President Trump has shown that he is willing to recklessly enter military conflicts without congressional support," noted an Issue One campaigner.
Apr 14, 2026
With the status of US-Iran talks unclear halfway through a two-week ceasefire, a dozen faith, science, veterans, and watchdog groups on Monday pressured key congressional committee leaders to swiftly reassert Congress' "constitutional authority over matters of war and peace," and put an end to President Donald Trump's new conflict in the Middle East.
"The founders were clear: Article I of the Constitution vests in Congress—not the president—the sole authority to declare war, fund military action, and oversee its execution," stresses the letter, addressed to leaders of both congressional foreign relations panels: Reps. Brian Mast (R-Fla.) and Gregory Meeks (D-NY), and Sens. James Risch (R-Idaho) and Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH).
Abigail Bellows, senior policy director for anti-corruption and accountability at Common Cause, one of the groups behind the letter, said in a statement that "the Constitution places decisions of war and peace in the hands of Congress because the American people deserve a voice before their lives and tax dollars are put on the line."
The letter acknowledges that "over time, presidents of both parties have pushed the limits of their constitutional authority, gradually eroding Congress' role in decisions of war and peace. Reasserting Article I authority is not about one president or one party. It is about restoring the constitutional balance that protects our democracy, our national security, and our troops."
Víctor Guillén, director of national campaigns at Issue One, which spearheaded the letter, said that "while presidents of both parties have stretched the boundaries of constitutional authority, we are especially concerned about the actions of President Trump. From Greenland to Venezuela to Iran, President Trump has shown that he is willing to recklessly enter military conflicts without congressional support."
"His impulsiveness has led to suffering for millions of Americans, from American troops who were wounded and killed to people living paycheck to paycheck, wondering how they will afford groceries, gas, or childcare," Guillén said of Trump. "Now that Congress has seen what the president is capable of, it must stop the president from repeating it."
"If Congress does not check him now," the campaigner declared, "the president will most likely start more poorly planned and pointless conflicts in the future—on Truth Social, no less—to the detriment of the American people and citizens around the world."
Trump and Israel's war on Iran has already led to thousands of deaths across the Middle East, plus damaged civilian infrastructure throughout Iran. Israeli forces have also ramped up attacks on Lebanon, including during the ceasefire agreed to last week.
"Every moment lawmakers fail to act weakens accountability and puts both our democracy and more lives at risk," said Bellows. "Common Cause stands ready to work with Congress to restore the proper balance of power and ensure that decisions about war reflect the will of the people."
Specifically, the coalition is calling on lawmakers to:
- Advance measures requiring congressional authorization before further military escalation;
- Conduct robust oversight of ongoing military operations and expenditures;
- Reaffirm Congress' Article I authority over war powers and the use of taxpayer funds; and
- Revisit and reform the War Powers Resolution to ensure that Congress has a meaningful consultative and decision-making role in any significant military deployment.
"This is a bipartisan responsibility," the letter emphasizes. "The Constitution is clear and the stakes are high."
The letter's other signatories are Democracy Matters, Faith in Democracy, Mormon Women for Ethical Government, Principles First, Project on Government Oversight, Protect Democracy, RepresentUs, Stand Up America, The Chamberlain Network, and Union of Concerned Scientists.
So far, nearly all Republicans and a short list of Democrats in the GOP-controlled Congress have blocked multiple war powers resolutions on Iran and Trump's other unauthorized military action. Another round of votes on Iran are expected this week.
US Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) also plans to force senators to consider cutting off the flow of Americans weapons to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's government over its genocide against Palestinians in the Gaza Strip since October 2023.
Specifically, on Wednesday, Sanders intends to force votes on a pair of resolutions that would prohibit a $151.8 million sale of 12,000 BLU-110A/B general purpose 1,000-pound "dumb" gravity bombs and related logistics and technical support services, as well as a $295 million sale of Caterpillar bulldozers along with related materials and support.
"US taxpayers have spent tens of billions of dollars in support of the racist, extremist Netanyahu government. Enough is enough," Sanders said Tuesday. "The United States must use the leverage we have—tens of billions in arms and military aid—to demand that Israel ends these atrocities."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Ex-Officials, Watchdogs Rip Trump Effort to 'Bully' IRS Into Giving Him $10 Billion in Taxpayer Dollars
"Our government should be accountable to the people, not the whims of a power-hungry executive," said one Common Cause campaigner.
Feb 05, 2026
Less than a week after a court filing revealed that President Donald Trump is suing his own Treasury Department and Internal Revenue Service for $10 billion over the leak of his tax returns during his first term, former federal officials and watchdog groups on Thursday called out his attempt to abuse "powerful tools for holding government accountable."
The legal group Democracy Forward filed a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of Common Cause, the Project On Government Oversight, ex-IRS Commissioner John Koskinen, former National Taxpayer Advocate Nina Olson, and Kathryn Keneally and Gilbert Rothenberg, who both held leadership roles in the US Department of Justice's Tax Division.
"This case is extraordinary because the president controls both sides of the litigation, which raises the prospect of collusive litigation tactics," states the amicus brief. "Collusive litigation threatens the integrity of the judicial process by risking the court's entanglement in an illegitimate proceeding. And although the complaint has significant defects—it was filed too late, against the wrong party, and for an unsupported and excessive sum of damages—the conflicts of interest make it uncertain whether the Department of Justice will zealously defend the public fisc in the same way that it has against other plaintiffs claiming damages for related events."
"To maintain the integrity of the judicial process in the face of these highly irregular circumstances, the court should consider exercising its inherent judicial authority to proactively manage this case from the outset," argued the former officials and groups, known as amici. Specifically, they said:
- First, the court should consider issuing an order for the parties: to show cause why this court has jurisdiction over this case, to explain how they will address the fundamental conflict-of-interest problems with this case, to show why this case should not be stayed until after President Trump leaves office, and to show why the unjustified $10 billion damage figure should not be stricken from the pleadings;
- Second, the court should consider appointing amici who have expertise on issues of tax law and separation-of-powers issues to present fulsome legal arguments on all future issues that arise in this case; and
- Third, the court should consider allowing participation of those amici in hearings.
"To treat this case like business as usual," the coalition declared, "would threaten the integrity of the justice system and the important taxpayer and privacy protections at the heart of this case."
In a statement about the new filing in the Southern District of Florida, Abigail Bellows, Common Cause's senior policy director for anti-corruption and accountability, stressed that "we are watching a president attempt to bully the IRS into giving him billions of our taxpayer dollars."
"Our government should be accountable to the people, not the whims of a power-hungry executive," Bellows said. "We urge the court to take steps to promote judicial integrity and protect the public interest."
President Trump has made $4 billion since his second inauguration. And now, he's suing the Treasury Department and IRS for $10 billion more in "damages."So we're filing a brief urging the court to reject President Trump’s scheme and protect taxpayers.
[image or embed]
— Democracy Forward (@democracyforward.org) February 5, 2026 at 5:37 PM
In addition to representing the amici in this case, Democracy Forward has launched various other lawsuits against Trump and his administration, which have faced sweeping allegations of corruption since the president returned to power a year ago.
According to an analysis published by the New York Times editorial board last month, on the one-year anniversary of his second inauguration, Trump and his family enriched themselves to the tune of at least $1.4 billion during the first year of his second term—largely through investment in cryptocurrencies, though he's also secured settlements from tech and media companies.
Various other members of the second Trump administration have also been accused of corruption and conflicts of interest, and as the Times separately revealed in December, many rich and powerful contributors to Trump's post-election fundraising haul have received corporate-friendly regulatory changes, dropped enforcement cases, government contracts, and even pardons.
"The president's corruption continues, this time in an attempt to take $10 billion dollars of the taxpayers' money, which threatens to make a mockery out of our justice system," said Democracy Forward president and CEO Skye Perryman. "Not only does the president's baseless case have significant legal defects, but there are colossal conflicts of interest at play."
"We thank these experts for raising these serious concerns about how President Trump is seeking to further illegally line his own pockets at the public’s expense and our brief urges the court to exercise its power to ensure the matter is not one-sided."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Using Boycotts to Defend Free Speech: This Is Larger Than Jimmy Kimmel
Kimmel isn’t the only voice that’s been targeted for failing to toe the line in the wake of Kirk’s murder, but Kimmel’s firing is the one that’s outraged millions of Americans who aren’t political junkies, so it's the one that offers the best chance to act.
Sep 22, 2025
How can we effectively push back on the Jimmy Kimmel suspension, and its larger threats to free speech? After Charlie Kirk’s shooting, Kimmel posted, “Can we just for one day agree that it is horrible and monstrous to shoot another human?” And sent his family’s “love to the Kirks and to all the children, parents, and innocents who fall victim to senseless gun violence.” But that didn’t seem to matter, because Kimmel also dared to point out that the Trump administration was using the assassination to score political points.
US President Donald Trump had already warned in July that Kimmel should be the next to be fired after Stephen Colbert. After Kimmel spoke out following the assassination, Trump Federal Communications Commission head Brendan Carr threatened to revoke the licenses of stations carrying Kimmel’s show. Nexstar and Sinclair then jumped in saying they wouldn’t air Kimmel’s episodes. And ABC-Disney caved. Vladimir Putin and his oligarchs would be proud.
Hearteningly, Americans are responding with appropriate outrage. The cancellation site of Disney+ streaming service has reportedly crashed from people ending their subscriptions. Conservative-leaning comedians have spoken out. Common Cause has launched a Turn Off Disney campaign and FreePress.Net has started a call-in campaign. Even Republican Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) called it “unbelievably dangerous for government to put itself in the position of saying we’re going to decide what speech we like and what we don’t, and we’re going to threaten to take you off air if we don’t like what you’re saying.”
The question is how to sustain the pushback, which means building the broadest possible coalition of fellow citizens who are outraged, whether or not they love Kimmel’s jokes and stands. And how to coordinate as many organizations as possible working together to promote approaches like:
- Boycotting ABC-Disney, including theme parks, cruises, movies, and streaming and TV channels like Disney+, ESPN, and Hulu. Asking international groups to do the same.
- Boycotting local stations of ABC, NextStar, and Sinclair. This could be particularly valuable given Sinclair’s longtime role demanding that their stations air their right-wing segments and talking points (plus demanding Kimmel donate to Turning Point or Kirk’s family). And Sinclair just backed off under pressure from their earlier announcement to schedule a Charlie Kirk Tribute in Kimmel’s slot. Public protests at the affiliates give people ways to act within their own communities, pressuring them to agree to carry Kimmel again and ask Sinclair to do so nationally. They can also spark general local coverage, along the lines of the Tesla Takedown campaigns.
- Targeting and pressuring station advertisers, both national and local. Local groups can publicly announce targets. People can find the advertisers by watching the local broadcasts. There’s also a crowdsourced map where people can take pictures of TV ads and then upload them with links to which advertiser and which station.
- Promoting all these actions on social media and in every other way. Hashtags circulating include #BoycottDisney, #CancelDisneyABC, #CancelDisneyPlus, #CancelHulu, #BoycottSinclair, and #IstandWithJimmyKimmel. Also here’s a link to related cartoons.
Successful boycotts and corporate campaigns need coalitions that act together and persist. I’m hoping other groups will now coordinate with Freepress.net and Common Cause to do this, and coordinate on common platforms to direct people. For instance, someone launched a boycottdisneyabc.com site with toolkits, templates, and an event page. But it’s not clear which, if any, groups are behind it or are using it. Pushback takes organization, as well as individual people acting.
Kimmel isn’t the only voice that’s been targeted for failing to toe the line in the wake of Kirk’s murder. MSNBC fired Matthew Dowd and the Washington Post fired columnist Karen Attiah. But Kimmel’s firing is the one that’s outraged millions of Americans who aren’t political junkies, so it's the one that offers the best chance to act. Kimmel’s suspension presents both a challenge to democracy, and an opportunity to keep this country one where governments can’t just shut down people who disagree with them.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Partisan Power Grab': Alarm Bells Ring After Missouri GOP Advances Extreme Redistricting Plan
One state Democratic leader accused the GOP of "aiding and abetting the systematic destruction of our democracy by an authoritarian regime."
Sep 10, 2025
The Republican-led Missouri House of Representatives on Tuesday passed a bill that would redraw their state's congressional map ahead of the 2026 midterm elections and potentially garner an extra seat for the GOP.
As reported by The Missouri Independent, the redrawn map carves up the district currently being represented by Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.) by placing regions that have traditionally voted for Democrats into districts held by Republicans.
If all goes according to plan, the new map would give Republicans seven seats in the US House of Representatives, up from their current total of six.
Although the map passed with Republican support, not every member of the party was on board. GOP state Rep. Bryant Wolfin, who voted against the measure, told the Independent that his GOP colleagues were showing that they only care about raw political power above all considerations.
"There's certainly nothing conservative about ignoring the moral implications of our actions," he said. "Morality is not defined by what is legal. Morality is not defined by what you can get away with."
Democratic House Minority Leader Ashley Aune was even more scathing in her denunciation of the GOP's power grab, and she accused the party of "aiding and abetting the systematic destruction of our democracy by an authoritarian regime led by geriatric conman who knows the only way he can win is to cheat," referring to President Donald Trump.
Although congressional maps are traditionally redrawn once per decade, Trump has been pressuring Republicans across the country to do a mid-decade gerrymander aimed at helping Republicans retain control of the House of Representatives next year.
Sarah Harris, a Missouri native and managing director of media engagement at Stand Up America, accused Missouri Republicans of doing Trump's bidding while ignoring the pressing needs of their own constituents.
"After pushing through a disgraceful mid-decade redistricting scheme in Texas, Donald Trump has now bullied Missouri Governor [Mike] Kehoe and Republican legislators in Missouri to do his dirty work," she said. "Instead of focusing on rising prices, rural hospital closures, and disaster relief, Missouri politicians are wasting time on a partisan power grab designed to protect corrupt DC politicians."
Even if the redrawn map passes the Missouri State Senate and gets signed into law, however, Missouri residents have a potential tool to block it.
St. Louis Public Radio reports that opponents of the new map can give voters the final say on it by organizing a statewide referendum.
"Any bill that passes out of the legislature can be put up for a statewide vote if opponents gather a certain number of signatures in six out of eight congressional districts," St. Louis Public Radio explains. "According to Secretary of State Denny Hoskins' website, that's a little more than 106,000 signatures."
Getting this many signatures from across the state will be challenging, however, as opponents of the new map will have just 90 days to complete a referendum drive after the end of the current special congressional session.
All the same, a new poll commissioned by Common Cause shows that the mid-decade redistricting push is broadly unpopular among voters, including those who voted for Trump in last year's election.
In all, the poll found that 70% of Democrats, 60% of independents, and 51% of Republicans opposed redrawing congressional maps in the middle of the decade, and that "large majorities" support the US Congress banning mid-decade redistricting.
"This data makes it clear: Republicans and Independents are just as tired of partisan gerrymandering as Democrats," said Virginia Kase Solomón, president and CEO of Common Cause. "Donald Trump's ask to find five seats with this mid-decade redistricting effort and his ask in 2020 to find him more votes in Georgia are both attempts to take away power from the people."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Watchdog Unveils Standards for Countermeasures to 'Authoritarian' GOP Gerrymandering
"We will not sit idly by while political leaders manipulate voting maps to entrench their power and subvert our democracy," said the head of Common Cause.
Aug 12, 2025
As Republicans try to rig congressional maps in several states and Democrats threaten retaliatory measures, a pro-democracy watchdog on Tuesday unveiled new fairness standards underscoring that "independent redistricting commissions remain the gold standard for ending partisan gerrymandering."
Common Cause will hold an online media briefing Wednesday at noon Eastern time "to walk reporters though the six pieces of criteria the organization will use to evaluate any proposed maps."
The Washington, D.C.-based advocacy group said that "it will closely evaluate, but not automatically condemn, countermeasures" to Republican gerrymandering efforts—especially mid-decade redistricting not based on decennial censuses.
Amid the gerrymandering wars, we just launched 6 fairness criteria to hold all actors to the same principled standard: people first—not parties. Read our criteria here: www.commoncause.org/resources/po...
[image or embed]
— Common Cause (@commoncause.org) August 12, 2025 at 12:01 PM
Common Cause's six fairness criteria for mid-decade redistricting are:
- Proportionality: Any mid-decade redistricting should be a targeted response proportional to the threat posed by mid-decade gerrymanders in other states.
- Public participation: Any redistricting must include meaningful public participation, whether through ballot initiatives or open public processes.
- Racial equity: Redistricting must not further racial discrimination or dilute the political voice of Black, Latino, Indigenous, Asian American, and Pacific Islander, or other communities of color.
- Federal reform: Leaders pursuing mid-decade redistricting must publicly endorse the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act and the Freedom to Vote Act, including provisions banning mid-decade redistricting and partisan gerrymandering.
- Endorsement of independent redistricting: Leaders pursuing mid-decade redistricting must publicly endorse citizen-led independent redistricting commissions as the long-term solution.
- Time-limited: Any new redistricting maps must expire following the 2030 Census, which counts all people in our country, and be replaced through the regular decennial redistricting process.
"We will not sit idly by while political leaders manipulate voting maps to entrench their power and subvert our democracy," Common Cause president and CEO Virginia Kase Solomón said in a statement. "But neither will we call for unilateral political disarmament in the face of authoritarian tactics that undermine fair representation."
"We have established a fairness criteria that we will use to evaluate all countermeasures so we can respond to the most urgent threats to fair representation while holding all actors to the same principled standard: people—not parties—first," she added.
Common Cause's fairness criteria come amid the ongoing standoff between Republicans trying to gerrymander Texas' congressional map and Democratic lawmakers who fled the state in a bid to stymie a vote on the measure. Texas state senators on Tuesday approved the proposed map despite a walkout by most of their Democratic colleagues.
Leaders of several Democrat-controlled states, most notably California, have threatened retaliatory redistricting.
"This moment is about more than responding to a single threat—it's about building the movement for lasting reform," Kase Solomón asserted. "This is not an isolated political tactic; it is part of a broader march toward authoritarianism, dismantling people-powered democracy, and stripping away the people's ability to have a political voice and say in how they are governed."
Keep ReadingShow Less
With Texas Dems on the Run, Vance Urges GOP Gerrymandering in Indiana
"We're in a knife fight for our democracy here in Indiana," said Democratic state lawmakers. "Trump is trying to bully the Indiana GOP into tearing apart our democracy."
Aug 07, 2025
Amid the specter of federal agents hunting down absconding Democratic state lawmakers resisting a Republican bid to gerrymander Texas' congressional map, U.S. Vice President JD Vance on Thursday traveled to Indiana, where his pitch for rigging that state's House districts was met with raucous opposition.
Vance met with Republican Indiana Gov. Mike Braun, who was reportedly "noncommittal" about redrawing the state's congressional map. In a Thursday interview on Fox News, Braun said that Indiana has "become more Republican over time, and these maps probably need to be looked at"—even as he admitted that a mid-decade redraw not linked to the decennial census would be "unusual."
Indiana Lt. Gov. Micah Beckwith, a Republican, took to social media to thank Vance for his visit and voice support for redistricting.
"Redistricting isn't just politics—it's about ensuring the voice of We the People is heard loud and clear," Beckwith said. "Indiana is proud to play a key role in shaping a stronger, freer future for our nation and as lieutenant governor I fully support this effort!"
According to the Indianapolis Star, protestors organized by the nonprofit group MADVoters booed for more than a minute after learning that Vance was in the State House. Opponents of gerrymandering, led by Democratic state lawmakers, staged an hourslong sit-in protest.
"This is clearly a power grab," state Rep. Cherrish Pryor (D-94) told the Indiana Capital Chronicle. "This is simply an attempt by the president to stay in power forever."
Julia Vaughn, executive director of the advocacy group Common Cause Indiana, said Republicans should be prepared for a legal fight over any redistricting.
"We will see you in court, Gov. Braun," she said. "Leave our congressional maps alone!"
More than 100 demonstrators also rallied outside the Indiana Governor's Mansion to protest Republican gerrymandering machinations.
Via IndyStar:Close to 100 people have gathered outside of the Indiana Governor’s Mansion to protest the state government, who floated the idea of redistricting the state in favor of Republican candidates.Indiana GOP already hold 7 of the state's 9 US. House seats. #indianapolis #hoosiersky
[image or embed]
— Noe Padilla (@noepadilla.bsky.social) August 7, 2025 at 1:42 PM
Republicans already occupy seven of Indiana's nine House seats. Any redistricting would likely target the state's 1st District, which is represented by Congressman Frank Mrvan, a Democrat.
"The Trump administration has recognized that their harmful policies to benefit wealthy elites at the expense of working families are wildly unpopular. They know that their only hope to maintain control is to pressure the Indiana General Assembly to violate the Indiana Constitution and redistrict U.S. House of Representative seats mid-decade," Mrvan said in a statement.
"My mission throughout my career as a public servant and as a member of the U.S. House is to advocate for the most vulnerable in our communities," Mrvan added. "Any attempt to redistrict now is simply an attempt to silence those very voices."
Indiana's other Democratic congressman, André Carson of the 7th District, said: "Redistricting attempts in Indiana are a power grab. It's unethical and the move of a dictator."
"We won't accept our democracy turning into a dictatorship," Carson added. "Attempts to silence our vote exist right now. We want our Republican friends to do the right thing."
Democrats in the Indiana House of Representatives also issued a statement, saying that "we're in a knife fight for our democracy here in Indiana."
"We're getting the word out that President [Donald] Trump is trying to bully the Indiana GOP into tearing apart our democracy—but we're not letting this happen without a big, public fight," the Democrats added.
Responding to the vice president's gerrymandering pitch, Brett Edkins, managing director for policy and political affairs at the pro-democracy group Stand Up America, said in a statement that "Vance didn't visit Indiana for a friendly chat—he was there on marching orders from Donald Trump to strong-arm and intimidate state leaders into rigging the electoral maps in his favor so that congressional Republicans can avoid accountability from the voters in next year's midterm elections."
"Hoosiers deserve leaders who listen to them—not bullies from Washington, D.C. doing Trump's bidding behind closed doors," Edkins added. "Gov. Braun and Indiana's leaders should reject any effort to redraw Indiana's political maps for partisan ends."
Republicans are weighing plans for congressional redistricting in other states, including Florida, Missouri, and Ohio, ahead of next year's midterm elections. Governors and lawmakers in some Democrat-controlled states have vowed to respond in kind, with New York Gov. Kathy Hochul saying earlier this week that members of her party should "fight fire with fire."
Vance's Indiana visit came amid an escalating standoff between Texas Democratic lawmakers who fled the state in a bid to stymie a vote on a GOP-grerrymandered congressional map and Republican officials who ordered their arrest and enlisted the FBI to help track them down and force them back to Austin.
"Let's call this what it is: a clear attempt to rig federal elections and cheat the American people out of a voice," National Democratic Redistricting Committee president John Bisognano said Thursday of the GOP gerrymandering push in Indiana and other states.
"Republicans in the Hoosier State have a choice," he added. "They can stand up against the authoritarian regime in Washington and help stop this attempt to steal an election—just as Republicans in Georgia and Arizona did in 2020—or they can roll over to Donald Trump, sacrificing the rights and freedoms of all Americans, and see the wall of resistance Texas Republicans are seeing right now."
Keep ReadingShow Less
After Months of Trying to Steal NC Supreme Court Seat, GOP Candidate Finally Concedes
"Throughout Griffin's shameful attempt to overturn the election, the people of North Carolina proved that we will not be silent," said the executive director of Common Cause North Carolina.
May 07, 2025
A six-month saga that drew national attention over a North Carolina state Supreme Court seat finally came to a close on Wednesday when the Republican judge who lost the race last fall conceded.
Jefferson Griffin, a Republican judge on the state Court of Appeals, lost the 2024 North Carolina Supreme Court election to incumbent Allison Riggs, a Democrat, by over 700 votes, a lead confirmed by two recounts. But Griffin would not accept the results, and instead launched an extraordinary bid to challenge tens of thousands of ballots in the race.
On Monday, a federal judge appointed by U.S. President Donald Trump dealt a decisive blow to Griffin's effort, ordering election officials to certify the results of the election and confirm that Riggs had won.
In his ruling, the judge wrote that "retroactive changes to election procedures raise serious due process concerns" and that Griffin essentially sought "to change the rules of the game after it had been played."
In a statement shared with outlet NC Newsline, Riggs said Monday that "today, we won."
"I'm proud to continue upholding the Constitution and the rule of law as North Carolina's Supreme Court Justice," she added.
Former Labor Secretary Robert Reich called the ruling "good news for democracy."
Instead of appealing the ruling, Griffin conceded defeat to Riggs. "While I do not fully agree with the District Court's analysis, I respect the court's holding—just as I have respected every judicial tribunal that has heard this case," Griffin said in a statement provided to The Associated Press. "I will not appeal the court's decision."
Common Cause North Carolina, is a nonpartisan grassroots organization, cheered the development.
"This is a victory for North Carolina voters, led by North Carolina voters," said Bob Phillips, executive director of Common Cause North Carolina, in a statement on Wednesday. "Throughout Griffin's shameful attempt to overturn the election, the people of North Carolina proved that we will not be silent when a politician attacks the voting rights of our family members, friends, and neighbors. We've shown the awesome power of everyday people to protect the freedom to vote."
Common Cause North Carolina was active in mobilizing North Carolina residents against Griffin's challenges.
In state court, Griffin challenged more than 60,000 votes on eligibility grounds.
At one rally organized by Common Cause North Carolina in February, speakers warned that Griffin's challenge of those votes was a threat to democracy and that the strategy could be copied by other losing politicians who want to challenge their defeats, according to NC Newsline.
Keep ReadingShow Less
House GOP Approves 'Modern-Day Poll Tax' With Passage of Orwellian SAVE Act
"Congressional Republicans' anti-voting legislation is a power grab to silence the voices of American citizens—full stop," said one advocate.
Apr 10, 2025
The U.S. House's passage of a bill on Thursday that would require Americans to prove their citizenship with documentation when they register to vote was the Republican Party's response to the fact, said one progressive critic, that "every day more people are catching on to their big grift."
"H.R. 22 is how they plan to keep themselves in power," said Maurice Mitchell, national director of the Working Families Party, of the so-called Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act. "Not by making life easier for working people, but by making voting harder."
The bill, proposed by Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas), would require all Americans to present a passport or an original copy of their birth certificate in person when they register to vote and update their voter registration—purporting to combat what Republicans have falsely claimed is a "problem that affects voters in nearly all 50 states": that of noncitizens voting in federal elections.
With noncitizens already barred from voting in federal elections, numerous analyses have found that very few ballots have ever been cast by people who aren't U.S. citizens. The Brennan Center for Justice found that noncitizens were suspected of casting just 30 votes out of 23.5 million in 2016—or 0.0001% of all votes cast.
But the Brennan Center was among many rights advocacy groups warning Thursday that more than 21 million Americans don't have easy access to their birth certificates or a passport, and could be disenfranchised by the SAVE Act.
"The House has just passed one of the worst pieces of voting legislation in American history," said Michael Waldman, the group's president and CEO. "The Senate must stop it. The SAVE Act would put voting out of reach for millions of American citizens. It should not become law."
According to Public Citizen, the SAVE Act has the potential to stop tens of millions of Americans from voting.
About 146 million citizens don't have a passport—nearly as many as the 153 million people who voted in the 2014 presidential election, Public Citizen noted.
The bill could also disenfranchise up to 69 million women and 4 million men who have changed their names after marrying, as they wouldn't be able to use their birth certificates showing their names at birth to prove their citizenship.
Voters in states including West Virginia, Mississippi, Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, and Oklahoma, where less than one-third of citizens have a valid passport, could be most impacted by the SAVE Act's requirements.
"The SAVE Act is an assault on a fundamental American freedom—our ability to vote," said Gilbert. "A set of eligible voters who were able to participate in past elections—some who have been registered for decades—will now be unable to cast their ballots."
Along with making voting harder for people in rural areas, naturalized citizens, low-income voters, Native Americans, first-time voters, and people of color—many of whom lack easy access to citizenship documents—the SAVE Act would end voter registration drives, upend online voter registration systems that are used in 42 states, and make it harder for voters to register by mail. States would also be required to establish programs to purge existing voter rolls.
President Donald Trump and the Republicans, said Mitchell, "want to weaken the opposition to their pro-billionaire agenda, even if that means taking away our freedom to vote. But we refuse to be silenced, and we will do everything in our power to stop their shameless power grab."
Four Democratic House members—Reps. Jared Golden (D-Maine), Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (D-Wash.), Henry Cuellar (D-Texas), and Ed Case (D-Hawaii)—joined the Republicans in supporting the legislation.
Common Cause denounced the four Democrats for their vote "to suppress the vote of millions of Americans."
Common Cause president and CEO Virginia Kase Solomón said the SAVE Act should be called "what it is: a modern-day poll tax."
"If this bill becomes law, millions of hardworking Americans will have to either shell out money getting the right papers to prove their citizenship or have no say in the next election for Congress and president," said Kase Solomón.
The point of the bill, she said, is "to make it so difficult to vote that many people will give up on voting all together."
In the Senate, Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) introduced a companion bill earlier this year. The GOP, which holds 53 Senate seats while the Democrats hold 47, would need Democrats to join them to overcome the 60-vote filibuster threshold in order to pass the bill.
"Every U.S. senator who cares about protecting our right to the ballot must vote down this poll tax in any form," said Kase Solomón. "Common Cause and our 1.5 million members will make sure every senator hears from the people that this bill is dead on arrival."
Tony Carrk, executive director of the government watchdog group Accountable.US, said the SAVE Act also "paves the way to toss out legal votes and undermine election results that [the Republicans] don't like."
"Congressional Republicans' anti-voting legislation is a power grab to silence the voices of American citizens—full stop," said Carrk. “Donald Trump, Elon Musk, and their allies in Congress are attacking voting by threatening Americans' ability to vote by mail, allowing Musk's [Department of Government Efficiency] to access sensitive personal information, and kneecapping states' ability to run free and fair elections."
"It should send a chill down the spine of every American," he said.
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More Stories
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy