Whether state courts are allowed to review the validity of redistricting by state legislatures is at the heart of a case to be considered by the U.S. Supreme Court.

A ruling in Moore v. Harper would allow for the creation of hyperpartisan voting districts which could not be challenged under judicial review by state courts, allowing state legislatures to be the sole authority responsible for developing the redistricting maps.

Vincent Bonventre, professor at Albany Law School, said the effects of the ruling would be long-lasting.

"A party in power that draws a redistricting map that very heavily favors that party in power," Bonventre pointed out. "Then therefore makes it an almost certainty that the party in power is going to win a disproportionate number of elections."

In New York, it could result in a majority Democratic rule and would overrule the decision in Harkenrider v. Hochul, which threw out a voting map drawn up by Democrats in the New York Legislature considered gerrymandered. Depending on the Supreme Court's ruling in Moore v. Harper, the New York map could be reconsidered for future use.

According to Ballotopedia, 48 of the 50 states have overwhelmingly Democratic or Republican-controlled legislatures, and depending on the outcome of the case, could remain so through redistricting.

Bonventre is unsure if states would be able to pass laws to blunt the effects of the ruling. However, he contended he knows what would be best for the voters.

"If we allow these extremely partisan redistricting by the state legislatures, so that the party in power disproportionately wins congressional seats, that is clearly contrary to the preferences of the voters in that state," Bonventre argued.

He sees strong legal arguments on both sides of the case, but noted allowing state courts to remain as a check to the legislature's power on redistricting would ultimately preserve the integrity of voting. It also lets voters decide who they want to represent them, rather than elected officials choosing whom they need to get reelected.

New Mexico demonstrators will join nationwide protests today to oppose policies of the Trump administration.

The "Good Trouble Lives On" nonviolent day of action continues a series of demonstrations across the country. Marches and candlelight vigils will honor Democratic Congressman John Lewis on the fifth anniversary of the civil rights icon's death. Lewis often advocated for getting into "good trouble" to oppose injustice.

Caroline Yezer, organizer for the activist group Indivisible Taos, one of the groups marching Thursday, said the protests will draw attention to President Donald Trump's reshaping of the federal government.

"If we can make it more visible how many people are outraged by the current policies of the Trump administration, the more chance we have of emboldening judges and politicians and others to take legal action," Yezer contended.

Yezer noted Taos demonstrators will line the streets at the corner of Civic Plaza Drive and Paseo Del Pueblo Norte starting at noon. Similar events are scheduled in Santa Fe, Albuquerque, Las Cruces and other New Mexico cities.

Since taking office, Trump has floated the idea of a federal crackdown on U.S. protesters. Last month, he deployed 4,000 National Guard troops and 700 U.S. Marines to Los Angeles during protests over the mass arrest of immigrants by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents. Yezer cautioned the federal response should encourage people to be careful when demonstrating but she admires those in Taos who protest every day.

"I think that nothing worth fighting for is easy and I think we all know that this is a long fight," Yezer asserted. "Even though we're pacing ourselves, I have to say I'm really blown away by the people who are showing up with a sign every day."

Lewis, who died in 2020, was severely beaten by Alabama state troopers in 1963 when he led a group of voting rights protesters across a bridge in Selma, Alabama. The incident increased pressure on Congress to pass the 1965 Voting Rights Act.


get more stories like this via email

A case with national implications on the power of the U.S. president to use state National Guard troops to quell protests now rests with a panel of three district court judges after a hearing on Tuesday ended without a decision.

Gov. Gavin Newsom wants the court to force President Donald Trump to relinquish control of the California National Guard, which was deployed over Newsom's objections to Los Angeles following unrest over immigration raids.

Brett Shumate, assistant attorney general for the Civil Division of the U.S. Department of Justice, said the court has no power to review the President's decision.

"The President has the discretion to decide what level of forces are necessary to counter the threat, necessary to repel the invasion, suppress the rebellion or execute those laws," Shumate argued. "In the President's judgment, 2,000 National Guard are necessary to execute the laws in California and the record bears that out."

The governor and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass have countered local law enforcement had the situation under control. They contend the Guard's presence only inflamed tensions and raised the risk of violence. Schumate asserted the troops are essential to enforce immigration laws.

Samuel Harbourt, the attorney representing Gov. Newsom and the State of California, told the court the law requires the president to go through the governor, and denied the protests constituted an "invasion" or "rebellion."

"It would defy our constitutional traditions of preserving state sovereignty, of providing judicial review for the legality of executive action, of safeguarding our cherished rights to political protest," Harbourt outlined.

Harbourt noted the deployment in Los Angeles draws the California National Guard away from critical work at the state level, including wildfire prevention and drug interdiction.


get more stories like this via email

UPDATE: A statement about the arrest from the University of Cincinnati has been added. (8:10 a.m. MDT, Apr. 3, 2025)

A recent arrest on the University of Cincinnati campus is sparking outrage among civil rights advocates, raising new concerns about student speech, academic freedom and the treatment of Muslim and pro-Palestinian voices across the country.

A University of Cincinnati student was arrested this week - allegedly for waving a Palestinian flag. Videos posted online show five police officers tackling the student as he repeatedly asked if he was under arrest.

Khalid Turaani, CAIR-Ohio executive director, called the incident an attack on civil liberties.

"We unequivocally condemn the arrest of student activists and the alleged attack on freedom of speech and academic freedom. For police officers to attack a student for raising a Palestinian flag is beyond the pale as Americans," he said.

The University of Cincinnati released a statement on the incident:

"UC Police arrested a student who was protesting against a free speech demonstration occurring on campus that involved non-university affiliated preachers. Police officers warned the student several times not to impede the movement of the demonstrators. The student became involved in an altercation with the demonstrators and disregarded police officers' directions. Student was subsequently arrested for disorderly conduct and resisting arrest."

The Council on American-Islamic Relations said the arrest fits a troubling national pattern. Over the past month, students at institutions such as Columbia, Georgetown and Tufts have been detained. Some have been transferred to detention centers in Louisiana or had their visas revoked.

Turaani said Americans around the country should be cautious.

"It's creating an atmosphere that is reminiscent of the McCarthyist era where people are going to be assaulted or jailed or targeted because of things that they say or because of the belief that they have," he continued.

Turaani warned the recent wave of arrests could especially impact international and Muslim students, who may feel silenced for speaking out, and speaks directly to them.

"You are in the forefront of this civil rights movement. Everybody went through that. It seems this is our turn, to defend the civil rights of the rest of America for freedom of expression, for academic freedom, for human rights," he said.



get more stories like this via email