In its next session, the U.S. Supreme Court will weigh a congressional gerrymandering case from North Carolina, and the court's ruling could have a significant impact on the bipartisan Wisconsin Elections Commission.

The case centers around the "Independent State Legislature Theory" (ISLT), which holds legislatures have broad authority to manage federal elections and redistricting.

Ethan Herenstein, counsel with the Democracy Program at the Brennan Center for Justice, said the most extreme version of the theory could bar legislatures from sharing any election power with other state actors.

"And that would mean that the Wisconsin Elections Commission wouldn't be permitted to help run federal elections, even if the Legislature asked it to," Herenstein explained. "The ISLT is radical; this would be doubly so."

In another scenario, which Herenstein acknowledged the court is unlikely to endorse, the Legislature could pass a law dissolving or diminishing the power of the elections commission, and Gov. Tony Evers would be unable to veto it, as it pertains to federal elections.

The bipartisan elections commission has recently found itself in GOP crosshairs, as many Republican legislators allege it has mishandled the state's elections, and have called for its dissolution.

A ruling endorsing the Independent State Legislature theory would have far-reaching implications, specifically in the realm of redistricting. According to the Brennan Center, the principle could be used to block state courts from weighing in on federal redistricting cases.

Herenstein argued it is a serious problem, since a prior Supreme Court ruling blocked federal courts from weighing partisan gerrymandering claims.

"So, in short, if the Supreme Court were to rule for the gerrymanderers in North Carolina, that may mean that state legislatures are free, when it comes to congressional elections, to gerrymander to their heart's delight and there will be no court available to stop them," Herenstein asserted.

But Herenstein added federal courts still could consider cases where lawmakers break other federal election and redistricting rules, such as racial gerrymandering. The Supreme Court will likely hand down a ruling in the North Carolina case next summer.

More testimony was heard yesterday about term limit reforms in North Dakota, an issue voters around the state might have to decide again.

In 2022, North Dakota voters approved imposing term limits for state lawmakers and the governor. Legislators can no longer serve more than eight years in the House and Senate.

But a handful of bills this session call for another ballot question, to raise state lawmakers' term limit to 12 years.

Sen. Justin Gerhardt, R-Mandan, sponsor of one bill, said the new framework threatens the value of experience at the State Capitol.

"Our citizen-led Legislature meets for only 80 days every two years," Gerhardt pointed out. "By the time a new legislator gets a handle on the budget process, legislative rules and the needs of their district, they're already on their way out the door."

He added his bill also addresses the issue of lawmakers who are appointed to fill a seat. Opponents said the moves undermine the will of the voters.

A separate bill proposing a new statewide vote on the prospective changes will be heard this morning. If one of the measures advances to the ballot, it likely would come up in the 2026 general election.

Those who want term limits said they foster fresh voices in policymaking.

Kevin Herrmann, a resident of Beulah, is one of the many people to testify against the new reform efforts.

"This resolution is a way for legislators to get back their legislative power over the citizens of North Dakota," Herrmann contended.

Another thorny element to this debate is, the 2022 ballot question included language prohibiting state lawmakers from trying to force the issue down the road. One of the bills in question repeals the language in trying to get the question back on the ballot. Backers of the proposals acknowledge they are likely to draw court challenges over constitutional arguments.

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


get more stories like this via email

A coalition of rural, progressive Democratic organizations is urging the new chair of the national party to invest more in rural and working-class communities in Nevada and around the country.

Anthony Flaccavento, executive director of the Rural Urban Bridge Initiative, said it's time for the party to start prioritizing these often forgotten groups, especially after the party's lackluster performance in November in which large portions of these groups rejected Democrats.

"If we don't begin to win back a significant part of these rural and working-class people, then Trump will more than likely survive these four years intact in the sense of getting his policies enacted," he said.

Flaccavento called the opposition reignited by Trump being back in the White House "promising," but adds it has to reach beyond highly educated, liberal folks. Nevada's rural voters make up a small fraction of the state's electorate, the majority being held within Clark and Washoe counties. That's where Democrats have focused their efforts and have stayed competitive. But Flaccavento pointed out that now more than ever, his party needs to regroup, restrategize and reinvest in rural, working-class America.

The new DNC chair, Ken Martin, the longtime leader of Minnesota's Democratic Party organization, recently wrapped up a multi-state tour in which he aimed to appeal to the working class. He has publicly acknowledged that the party has lost ground with working-class and rural voters. Flaccavento said time is of the essence which is why his coalition of groups is urging action now.

"How about we start with a focus on the DNC, with new leadership coming up, and try to get them on board with this and then work with the DNC to work with Democratic donors and the party in general to shift the focus and start investing in these two communities," he continued.

Flaccavento said many Democrats need to make long-term investments in "abandoned" counties where party leaders feel alone and locals feel like their requests and priorities are falling on deaf ears.

"We will not see results in one or two election cycles, but we might see results in a decade. And then in the battleground states do the same thing, but with more expectation that it'll actually yield election results in 2026 and in 2028," he concluded.

A South Dakota Senate committee considers several bills today to overhaul rules for getting citizen-led measures on the ballot.

The proposals are drawing sharp debate about the future of direct democracy. Republican lawmakers want stricter requirements for ballot questions when South Dakota residents or affiliated organizations seek things like a constitutional amendment. One bill calls for raising the approval threshold to 60% of the vote when a measure gets onto the ballot.

Stacy Roberts, board co-chair for the advocacy group Dakota Rural Action, said the attempt appears to undermine voters' intelligence.

"They're basically telling the population of South Dakota that they don't know what they're voting for, and I think that's very untrue," Roberts asserted.

Whether it is signing a petition or deciding a ballot measure on Election Day, Roberts feels voters are well-informed. She likens the bills to "sour grapes" following the success of recent initiatives, like Medicaid expansion. Bill sponsors said the ballots have been cluttered with too many citizen-led initiatives and higher standards are needed for constitutional changes.

Roberts countered the process has enough safeguards to ensure the integrity of South Dakota's Constitution. Bill sponsors argued some measures are driven by well-funded, out-of-state groups. But Roberts contended making it harder to approve them actually puts more power in the hands of wealthy influencers, not the people.

"Large funders get a more disproportionate voice and a seat at the table when you make these changes," Roberts emphasized.

She pointed to a grassroots-led ballot question last fall, when South Dakota voters overturned a controversial law dealing with carbon pipeline projects.

Historians noted South Dakota has been a trailblazer, as the first state to embrace this form of democracy. Roberts added the ballot initiative process has benefited both sides of the political aisle and those unhappy with recent results should take it up with the voters, not change the rules.

"We all can work on it and change it," Roberts underscored. "That makes for a much more engaged general population."

The measures have already cleared the House. If the Senate advances them, the two proposals would go on the 2026 ballot, with voters having the final say on updating requirements.