Search

Although political parties are not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, the two-party electoral system is wellestablished in American elections and gerrymandering naturally occurs to benefit the party that controls both a state's legislative chambers and the governor's office. Tracing the evolution of partisan gerrymandering and examining the gerrymandering practices, this research finds that redistricting manipulation enabled by two-party electoral system, is a tale as old as time and it has continued for over two hundred years, rising or falling depending on the intensity of partisan politics. In 21st century, political polarization and gerrymandering have been feeding off each other. When the redistricting process is manipulated by entrenched partisan gerrymanders, it has become counterproductive to fair representation, competitive election, and translating public will into policies. As long as the foxes are allowed to guard the hen houses, partisan politicians will continue to abuse "one person, one vote" principle and pick voters. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The attempt by former President Donald Trump to manipulate the United States' 2020 presidential elections is a salient example of how electoral manipulation has changed to adapt to the new political and societal context that marks present- day elections. This highlights the need for a novel approach to help us better understand electoral manipulation, which is becoming increasingly common all over the world. This article addresses this need by presenting a novel framework for examining electoral manipulation in the United States in the 2020s. A novel feature of the framework is a focus on the interplay between different manipulation tactics. It identifies nine electoral manipulation tactics that interact with and reinforce each other: breaking democratic norms, disinformation, gerrymandering, voter suppression, hacking and leaking, collusion with foreign states, intraparty pressure, intimidation and violence, and corrupting state and government institutions. Maria Lindén [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

When the Court in Crawford v. Marion County Election Board approved presentment of a government-issued photo identification as a requirement to vote, Justice Stevens compared the requirement to what he characterized as "the usual burdens of voting." Since Crawford was decided, the concept of "the usual burdens of voting" has been invoked numerous times as lawsuits have been brought challenging state practices that are claimed to unduly burden the ability of voters to vote. In theory, "the usual burdens of voting" serve as a benchmark against which state conditions imposed on the ability to vote can be measured to determine if the right to vote has been infringed. Yet, despite numerous uses of the phrase, courts have generally left the phrase undefined. In essence, a benchmark exists, but the content, design, and dimensions of that benchmark are amorphous. This Article examines the development of the "usual burdens of voting" concept by Justice Stevens in Crawford and its use in subsequent decisions. This Article looks at the evolution of voting in the United States to provide some context as to how voting burdens should be understood. This Article concludes with some observations regarding the usefulness of the phrase as a means for determining whether a condition associated with voting, such as a prohibition on providing food or water to those waiting to vote, can be reliably evaluated using "the usual burdens of voting" concept. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As teachers and teacher educators in the United States, we offer this editorial based on our lived experiences with the political, social, and environmental precarities where we live. Among these precarities are our looming U.S. presidential election after the last one included a plot by bad actors to abscond with our State’s electoral votes, our constant struggle for water in a desert state, and our weak overall internet connectivity. We call our wonderings about how we are living in and somehow surviving these times, radical uncertainties. In this editorial, we canvas radical uncertainties related to e-learning about digital literacies, generative text, datafication, and the camera gaze. Alongside these uncertainties, we offer alternative avenues for collective thinking based on Chicana Feminist epistemologies. We intend for readers to consider how local knowing can and should inform elearning planning and practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]