If we want to protect the integrity of scientific inquiry, we must protect democracy (at Scientific American)
Across the country this November, voters have an opportunity to improve the quality of U.S. elections in their states, and for the country as a whole (at The Equation).
The Center for Science and Democracy has released a new analysis, Building a Healthier Democracy: The Link Between Voting Rights and Environmental Justice, which demonstrates the negative impact of restrictive election laws on voter turnout across Congressional districts (see the report and our impact maps here).
The U.S. Supreme Court agreed on something unanimously this week: The justices want nothing to do with solving the nation’s extreme partisan gerrymandering crisis.
What’s gone unsaid, however, is how the court itself helped create this mess — and why their latest dodge seems likely to make it even worse (at New York Daily News, with David Daley).
The Supreme Court, in a narrow 5-4 decision, has upheld a restrictive Ohio election law that initiates a process to purge eligible voters from its voter list if they fail to vote in a single election. A number of other states and localities have also implemented voter list purging tactics, and it is expected that this decision will result in additional states adopting more restrictive voter list purges (at The Equation).
This morning, I stirred my green tea vigorously to see if it would reveal the Supreme Court’s opinion on two partisan gerrymandering cases that are soon to be released. The tea spilled, I scalded my lap, then wondered why any Decent American Patriot would sip tea while the nation awaits a decision of such historic significance (at The Equation).