When the Framers of the U.S. Constitution determined that political power should be allocated proportionally based on population and race (as opposed to wealth, heredity, or religion), they needed a scientific means of measuring population. That is the primary reason that we have the Decennial Census, so that population traits can be identified geographically (at The Equation).
When the 116thCongress convenes in January, the new Democratic House majority has promised to make electoral integrity literally its first priority: House Resolution 1 (at The Equation).
The US midterm elections were historic in part because of the success of reforms to state redistricting processes. Citizens in Colorado, Michigan, Missouri, and Utah passed initiatives that take control of redistricting US House districts out of the hands of state legislatures. Reformers went undefeated, and this is a major achievement on its own. However, the 2018 elections are likely to be far more consequential for the future of redistricting, fair representation, and political equality in America than an increase in the number of non-partisan redistricting commissions. We may be entering an era of major electoral reforms in the United States, unseen since the Civil Rights Movement (at LSEUS blog).
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).