Lea County in southeast New Mexico has joined a previously-filed lawsuit asking that a redistricting map be thrown out.

The state's Republican Party filed the original lawsuit in January - arguing Democrats are favored in the state's three newly drawn congressional districts.

This year's process marked the first time in 30 years that Democrats controlled both chambers of the Legislature and the Governor's office. Adam Podowitz-Thomas - senior legal strategist for the Princeton Gerrymandering Project - reviewed the state's map for the project.

"All three districts are pretty competitive," said Podowitz-Thomas, "compared to some other states where we saw districts that are packed for one side or other, so there's really no chance of them ever changing hands. At least these districts could flip hands."

Redistricting takes place every 10 years using updated U.S. Census data.

In 2012, a New Mexico district judge drew new election boundaries for congressional and legislative seats after the Republican Governor vetoed a redistricting plan drafted by a Legislature controlled by Democrats.

Prior to the undertaking, New Mexico's lawmakers established a seven-member Citizen Redistricting Committee to conduct public hearings, receive public testimony and develop the maps. But unlike neighboring Colorado, the committee had no binding authority and Democrats drafted their own map.

Podowitz-Thomas said partisan maps are becoming more common largely due to improved technology.

"The map-drawing software that people have access to now is so much more sophisticated than it's been in the past," said Podowitz-Thomas. "You can really make minute changes to maps and tell almost immediately what the difference is going to be for the full decade's worth of performance."

Gerrymandering has long been used for partisan gain. But doing so in a way that disadvantages people based on race violates the Voting Rights Act.

Podowitz-Thomas said nonetheless, gerrymandering was pervasive nationwide.

"Just how aggressively states moved to sort of take away minority communities' ability to elect candidates," said Podowitz-Thomas, "I wasn't expecting them to be maybe quite as aggressive as they were, and that was sort of surprising to me."

The nation still is dissecting revealing testimony from this week's committee hearing on the January 6th attack on the U.S. Capitol. A top White House aide testified about former President Donald Trump's actions that day, most notably his desire to allow armed supporters at a rally before they stormed the complex.

One political expert acknowledged the latest developments might not move the needle in North Dakota but added voters should still be informed.

Mark Jendrysik, political science professor at the University of North Dakota, said it might not sway many voters in a conservative state, but he argued they should still be presented with details about how democracy was thrown into peril.

"Facts matter," Jendrysik contended. "People shouldn't be allowed to hide behind 'I don't remember' and 'That was a long time ago' or 'Why are you bringing up old stuff?' "

All members of North Dakota's Congressional delegation are Republican, and some have been critical of recent efforts to further examine last year's attack. Jendrysik noted it is not surprising given the polarization underscoring the fallout from the 2020 presidential election.

He suggests because of the magnitude of the attack, along with repeated false claims by some conservatives the election was stolen, voters and the media should not shy away from asking candidates in this year's vote about their views on the hearings.

"There is only one place to stand, and that is with the law and the Constitution," Jendrysik asserted. "You're not allowed to ignore things just because you think they're not going your way."

As for accountability, Jendrysik emphasized he does not think the hearings will result in criminal charges against former President Donald Trump. He believes "institutional fear" in Washington D.C. will be a factor as some decision-makers will try to avoid any further chaos.

Support for this reporting was provided by The Carnegie Corporation of New York.

A proposal to change the way Nevada votes is one step closer to getting on the November ballot after the State Supreme Court rejected a legal challenge.

The "Better Voting Nevada" campaign wants to end closed, partisan primaries where you can only vote for your registered party, and move to an open primary.

Sondra Cosgrove, professor of history at the College of Southern Nevada and a supporter of the "Better Voting Nevada" campaign, would like to change the state constitution to expand the number of candidates who move to the general election, to give more independent candidates a shot.

"We want to have more options," Cosgrove explained. "We don't want just two people moving forward from the primary to the general election. We want five people, because oftentimes when you look at the people who move forward, it's just the people with the most money."

The proposal would also institute ranked-choice voting in the general election. People would rank the candidates in order of preference, and if no one gets 51%, the lowest vote-getter falls off. Then, the second choice of their voters gets added to the total, and so on until someone has a majority.

The ballot measure is opposed by many of the state's top Democrats and by Silver State Voices, on the grounds it would be too confusing for voters.

Cosgrove argued the open-primary system would give candidates incentive to appeal to the widest range of voters, instead of producing far-right or far-left candidates who appeal to the extremes of their base.

"We're hoping ... the candidates will do the more moderate platform in the primary, and then just continue with that moderate platform as they move forward," Cosgrove emphasized.

The campaign turned in the last batch of signatures this week. Because the proposal would amend the state constitution, it would have to be approved by voters in two successive elections.

Support for this reporting was provided by The Carnegie Corporation of New York.

Washington state's primary election is coming up, and election officials are calling on voters to be vigilant about misinformation.

Washington Secretary of State Steve Hobbs said misinformation at election time has become more prevalent. He said local election officials are being more proactive and encourages people who have questions about the voting process to reach out to their local county auditor.

"We can't sit idly by anymore," said Hobbs. "We actually have to not only remind them to vote and sign their ballot, but also let them know what the ballot process is so it gives them the security and confidence to know their votes are going to count."

Washington state's primary is on August 2. Ballots will go out in mid-July.

Online and mail voter registrations must be received by July 25. People can register in person through election day, any time before 8 p.m.

Hobbs is participating in an online town hall meeting hosted by AARP Washington this Thursday to speak about voting and misinformation.

Doug Shadel is state director of AARP Washington. He said older Americans can be more likely to pass on misinformation in certain online contexts.

Shadel encouraged people to be more cognizant of the stories they're sharing.

"Before you do that, really do what we call lateral reading," said Shadel. "If you hear a story, question the validity of it. Find another source for that same information before you pass it on to someone else."

Shadel said voters age 50 and over are a vital segment of the electorate who show up to the polls consistently. That's why he believes it's important to get information on this subject out to them.

"Democracy depends on making decisions based on facts," said Shadel. "And we're committed to helping our members and others around the state get the facts both about the candidates and about where we stand with the elections."