Organized in January of 2018, the Millennial Action Project’s Democracy Reform Task Force (DRTF) is a collective of state legislators committed to rebuilding trust in democratic institutions through democracy reform. As a variety of approaches to reform gain traction in Congress and state legislatures across the country, the Millennial Action Project identified the need to create a bipartisan space for young legislators across state and party lines to convene and discuss state level approaches to revitalizing the American democracy. This group of policymakers was tasked with sharing their individual expertise and generating prospective solutions to make government more accountable, participatory, and representative of America. Through a series of peer-to-peer dialogues among 12 state legislators, from 10 different states, the Democracy Reform Task Force positioned itself on the front lines of millennial leadership to democracy reform.

This report includes approaches to democracy reform identified by members of the Democracy Reform Task Force in the areas of voting, government accountability, and redistricting.  Participation from state legislators on MAP’s Democracy Reform Task Force does not imply individual support for any or all of the methods identified in this document.

Cherisse Eatmon, director of the State Caucus Network at the Millennial Action Project (MAP), managed the creation and operation of the Democracy Reform Task Force (DRTF) as well as the compilation of this report. Cherisse would like to thank each member of the Democracy Reform Task Force for their time and commitment to Task Force activities and contributions to the report.

Thank you to Democracy Reform Task Force Members: Representative Chaz Beasley (North Carolina), Representative Jonathan Brostoff (Wisconsin), Representative Michael Caldwell (Georgia), Senator Stanley Chang (Hawaii), Representative Stephanie Clayton (Kansas), Representative Shevrin Jones (Florida), Senator Frank LaRose (Ohio), Senator Art Linares (Connecticut), Representative David Olsen (Illinois), Representative Warwick Sabin (Arkansas), Representative Caroline Simmons (Connecticut), and Representative Amanda Stuck (Wisconsin).  

In addition to members of the Task Force, Cherisse thanks members of the MAP team including Ram Sharma (MAP Policy intern), Layla Zaidane (MAP Chief Operating Officer), and Caroline Dvorsky (MAP Program Manager) for their contributions to Task Force projects and editing of this report. Cherisse would also like to thank staff at the Brennan Center for Justice including Ian Vandewalker and Daniel Weiner for their facilitation of discussions with members of the Task Force and Wendy Weiser and Alicia Bannon for their editorial support. Thank you to Kevin King and Libby Walker at Quorum for their support of Task Force activities. 

The unifying goal of American democracy is the notion of “E Pluribus Unum”—out of many, one. As James Madison noted in the Federalist Papers, political institutions that reconcile the “multiplicity of ideas” in America advance the public interest. The Democracy Reform Task Force, in its work over the past year, has endeavored to represent that multiplicity of ideas around democracy and governance, and this report showcases its findings. 

Unfortunately, the intense factionalism of today often prevents the productive political debate needed to improve our democracy. Numerous structural problems drive this constant conflict, and many key players in the system—from political parties and officials, to media and consultants—are incentivized to maintain the status quo. To achieve a more functional politics, we must work to develop collaborative political institutions that promote honest and deliberative legislating for the public good.

This Task Force was built by young legislators, who are not only eager to shake up politics-as-usual, but also have a proven track record of success. To that end, this report presents ideas to modernize our voting systems, improve government accountability, and ensure our legislative lines are drawn fairly. 

These reforms, combined with Millennial Action Project’s broader efforts, aim to create a dynamic political culture. In such a culture, Americans see the value of listening to different viewpoints, have an interest in finding common ground, and approach disagreement with respect and not demonization. It is one in which the broad majority of citizens believe that our system is capable of solving major problems, and rewards elected officials when they achieve cross-partisan results. In order to move towards this culture, we must rebalance the national conversation with more positive stories, rather than promoting stories of tribalism that appeal to fear and division. 

I am proud of the Task Force for engaging with these ideas, sharing their experiences, and building a future-focused vision of what a functional, transparent, and accountable government looks like. In their vision, American politics is one of listening, learning, creating, and innovating—all towards E Pluribus Unum. 

Signed, 

Steven Olikara

MAP President and Founder

In recent decades, the American public’s trust in our government institutions has dramatically declined, intensifying skepticism of our democracy. The rapid deterioration of public confidence in government’s ability to function for the people can be attributed to a variety of factors including an increase in the hyperpolarization of politics, a lack of incentives for bipartisan collaboration, and fundamental issues in the functions of democracy. This distrust of the system is particularly high in the millennial generation with 67% of Millennials fearful of America's future and only 14% of the generation believing the country is moving in the right direction.¹ As the United States crosses a historic threshold of Millennials surpassing baby boomers as the largest voting bloc in the nation, this breakdown in trust impacts the strength of democracy and contributes to a lack of civic participation, particularly among the younger generations. To restore the public’s trust in political institutions, state lawmakers must take the lead to introduce strategic reforms to improve government efficiency while ensuring a participatory and representative democracy.

Voices of the millennial generation are underrepresented at all levels of government. Millennials make up 28% of the American population but only 6% of Congress.²  As the most diverse and most educated generation in American history, Millennials possess the electoral power to significantly influence the American political system and the future of the country’s democracy.  To encourage a more participatory democracy and a representative government, millennial-age state legislators are leading reforms including modernizing voter registration, increasing access to voting, and innovating systems of voting. 

MODERNIZING VOTER REGISTRATION

Online voter registration:  Thirty-seven states and the District of Columbia offer online voter registration permitting eligible citizens to register and update their voter registration information online.   Through a 2002 authorization approved by the Secretary of State, Arizona was the first state to implement online voter registration and in 2008 Washington became the first state to implement online voter registration through state legislative action. In 2016, DRTF Member Senator Frank LaRose (Ohio) sponsored legislation that successfully enacted online voter registration for the people of Ohio. These initiatives spearheaded a national conversation around accessible voter registration that continues today.

Automatic voter registration:  Automatic voter registration (AVR) is transforming the way Americans register to vote across the country.  Rather than the traditional system where citizens must sign up to vote, AVR programs permit government agencies like the Department of Motor Vehicles to automatically register voters or update existing voter registrations.  These government entities electronically transfer voter registration information to the appropriate election officials. Systems of automatic voter registration reduce barriers to the ballot and increase government efficiency by saving money and encouraging a more participatory democracy.  In 2015, Oregon was the first state to pass an AVR law establishing a system to automatically register Oregonians that interact with the Department of Transportation.  In 2017, DRTF Members Representative Jonathan Brostoff (Wis.) and Representative Amanda Stuck (Wis.) introduced legislation to create a statewide automatic voter registration system in Wisconsin.  Most recently, Michigan and Nevada approved automatic voter registration joining 13 other states and the District of Columbia with AVR programs.³   

Same-day voter registration:  With bipartisan support in 1973, Maine became the first state to implement statewide same-day voter registration (SDR).  Forty-five years later, states are still moving towards same-day voter registration with Utah passing SDR by ballot measure in 2018.  Often referred to as Election Day registration, 15 states plus the District of Columbia make registration available on Election Day while North Carolina and Maryland allow same-day registration during a portion of their early voting periods but not on Election Day.⁴ States that allow SDR consistently lead the nation in voter participation. In the 2012 presidential election, four of the five states with the largest turnout were states with SDR. Additionally, research has shown minimal costs associated with implementing same-day voter registration.⁵  

EXPANDING ACCESS TO VOTING

Early in-person voting:  Early voting can significantly improve voter turnout by expanding opportunities for citizens to vote, rather than constraining voting to a few hours in a single day.  Allowing citizens to vote before Election Day provides flexibility to demanding schedules and increases the time available to identify and correct registration and voting issues.⁶  In 2018, DRTF Member Representative Caroline Simmons (Conn.) co-sponsored a resolution to permit early voting in Connecticut during the two weeks before Election Day.  

Vote by mail:  Elections by mail or “vote at home” is a unique voting model gaining momentum in state legislatures throughout the country.  In 2013, Colorado Future Caucus Co-Chair Representative Dan Pabon (Colo.) sponsored legislation making Colorado the first state to conduct all elections by mail.  Research analyzing the 2014 election in Colorado found that all-mail elections increased efficiency, reduced costs for the state, and provided a good experience for Coloradans.⁷ In Washington state, all-mail elections increased voter turnout with a greater increase among low propensity voters.⁸

Pre-registration and lowering the voting age:  Across the country, young people are increasingly flexing their civic engagement muscles through social media campaigns and voter registration drives.  To further engage young people early on in the democratic process, states are enacting laws allowing young people to pre-register to vote and vote in primary elections at the age of 17 if they will be 18 by the general election.  Pre-registration, or registering to vote at the age of 16 or 17, has proven to increase voter turnout.⁹ Thirteen states and the District of Columbia allow 16-year-olds to register to vote.¹⁰  State legislators have taken the lead in allowing 17-year-olds who will be 18 on or before the upcoming Election Day to vote in the corresponding primary or caucus elections.  In 2018, a bipartisan group of legislators in Utah passed legislation permitting voter registration and voting in primary elections for 17-year-olds turning 18 by the date of the general election.

TRANSFORMING THE SYSTEM OF VOTING

Ranked-choice voting:  In recent years, there has been a lot of attention focused on innovating the process of voting. During MAP’s 2018 Future Summit, a convening of young state legislators from across the country, participants expressed interest in the momentum building around ranked-choice voting—a system where voters rank candidates in order of preference rather than only voting for one candidate.  A winner is declared when one candidate receives at least  50% of the vote. If no candidate receives 50% or more of the voters’ number-one selections in the first round of tallying, the candidate with the fewest first-place votes is eliminated in the following round of counting. If a voter’s number-one selection is eliminated, their vote goes to their second-choice candidate. This process is repeated until one candidate receives at least 50% of the votes and is declared the winner.  Contrary to traditional systems of voting where a winner is declared by plurality, in a ranked-choice voting system a candidate must earn an absolute majority of the votes to win. Supporters of ranked-choice voting argue that candidates should be required to gain approval from a majority of voters, therefore obtaining at least 50% of the vote.¹¹  

The 2018 election was the first time in history ranked-choice voting was used in a congressional race.  As a direct result of ranked-choice voting, Jared Golden, a 36-year-old state legislator, was elected to represent Maine’s 2nd Congressional District.¹²  In the first vote count on Election Day, the incumbent Congressman Bruce Poliquin (46.3%) led Golden (45.6%) by 2,171 votes.  Independent candidates on the ballot received 23,427 (8.1%) votes. Because no candidate received more than 50% of the first-choice votes, a ranked-choice runoff was triggered.  Through the runoff system, the independent candidates were eliminated and votes from their supporters were redistributed among Golden and Poliquin—whichever candidate the voter ranked highest.  After retablulations, Golden gained 10,427 votes and Poliquin gained 4,747 votes. With a net gain of more than 5,680 votes for Golden in the second round, he was able to overcome Poliquin’s initial 2,171-vote lead and win the election. The “instant runoff” scenario initiated by ranked-choice voting is gaining interest from policymakers across the country interested in developing ways to more fairly represent a full spectrum of voter interests.

Youth Advisory Commissions:  The majority of lawmakers in the United States are baby boomers often leaving young people feeling disconnected and disengaged from the legislative process.¹³  As a result, DRTF Member Senator Stanley Chang (Hawaii) introduced legislation to promote youth civic engagement and increase government accountability by establishing a Youth Advisory Commission responsible for advising the governor and legislature on issues relating to young people.  Youth Advisory Commissions throughout the country have varying structures and are tasked with a variety of objectives and goals. The Washington Legislative Youth Advisory Council (LYAC), created through state legislation in 2005 and reauthorized in following years, is still actively engaging young people in the legislative process. The LYAC is tasked with examining the issues most pressing to young people including education, healthcare, civic engagement, and more. 

In the largest expansion to voting rights in decades, voters in Florida passed a 2018 ballot initiative restoring the right to vote to nearly 1.4 million individuals in the state. The reinstatement of voting rights to Florida citizens who have completed their sentences for felony convictions is the largest extension of voting rights since the 26th Amendment lowered the voting age to 18 in 1971. An avid supporter for the restoration of voting rights, DRTF Member Representative Shevrin Jones (Fla.) shared his support of the amendment stating “This decision, supported by the people of Florida, is past due in overturning a rule disenfranchising citizens of our state by stripping them of their right to representation and often their humanity. I am proud to stand with the people of Florida ensuring citizens of our state rightfully possess their voices in our democracy.” Disenfranchisement laws vary across the country with Iowa and Kentucky remaining as the only two states to prohibit people with felony convictions from voting without an individual pardon.¹⁴

States are taking the lead in restoring government accountability and transparency through reforms in campaign finance, public access to records, ethics, and more.  According to a poll conducted by The Harvard University Institute of Politics, reducing the power of money in politics is of critical concern to Millennials.¹⁵ In 2017, 23 states amended their campaign finance laws.¹⁶Michigan, Washington, and Maine enacted restrictions on the use of public funds or resources during campaigns while North Dakota and South Dakota created committees to study campaign finance reform options and recommend changes to the legislature.¹⁷  

PUBLIC FINANCING OF CAMPAIGNS

Throughout the country, state legislatures are reforming campaign finance laws to include elements of public finance.  Such programs expand opportunities for candidates, especially for non-traditional candidates, to gain access to resources and level the playing field when running for office.  This is particularly important to younger candidates and young people considering running for office that do not have access to the same level of resources as older candidates or more traditional candidates. From small-dollar donor requirements in Connecticut, to democracy vouchers in Seattle, WA, states and cities are introducing public financing options to increase access to public service and encourage citizen participation.

Clean election programs:  With bipartisan support in 2005, Connecticut passed legislation establishing the Citizen’s Elections Program (CEP).  This voluntary program, available to candidates for statewide offices and the Connecticut General Assembly, limits the total amount of money candidates spend on the election as well as requires participants to raise a threshold of funds from individual contributions of no more than $100.  To DRTF Member Representative Caroline Simmons (Conn.) the CEP increases the competitiveness of elections and holds candidates accountable by “reducing the amount of special interest money in campaigns allowing candidates to spend more time connecting with constituents rather than corporate donors.”  In his 2018 campaign for state treasurer, DRTF Member Senator Art Linares (Conn.) participated in Connecticut’s Clean Election Program, supplementing the more than $80,000 in campaign contributions he raised from individual small-dollar donations.  As a candidate for state treasurer, qualification for the program requires candidates to raise at least $76,000 from individual donations between $5 to $100.¹⁸  

Democracy vouchers:  In 2017, Seattle, WA launched a Democracy Voucher Program that provides eligible residents with four $25 vouchers to contribute to the candidate(s) of their choice.  To participate in the program, candidates must collect a qualifying number of contributions ranging from $10 to $250. The program has increased voter engagement by encouraging participation from constituents who typically refrain from contributing to political campaigns.  The concept of voucher systems is gaining momentum in cities throughout the country. In February of 2019, citizens of Albuquerque, NM will vote on a ballot initiative to expand their public finance system by creating a voucher program.¹⁹

TRANSPARENCY AND PUBLIC ACCESS TO RECORDS

Electronic filing of campaign contributions:  One of the most widespread efforts to improve transparency and accountability in state legislatures involves leveraging technology for digital recordkeeping and management.  In an effort to increase transparency in campaign contributions, state legislatures are enacting laws requiring the electronic filing of campaign contributions through statewide databases. Enacted in 2017, DRTF Member Representative Warwick Sabin (Ark.) sponsored a pair of bills requiring candidates to electronically file campaign finance reports tracked on a statewide database.

Digital recordkeeping:  In 2017, legislation introduced by Colorado Future Caucus Co-Chair Representative Dan Pabon (Colo) moved state recordkeeping into the digital age by requiring that public records be available in searchable and sortable digital formats.  Serving as the first major update to Colorado’s open records laws in more than a decade, this law is designed to increase the public’s trust with a more open and transparent system of governance.

Elimination of anonymous bill introduction:  In 2018, DRTF Member Representative Stephanie Clayton (Kan.) introduced legislation to end the process of anonymous bill introduction in the Kansas state legislature. Rather than making the change through state legislation, anonymous bill introduction was eventually prohibited by administrative action of the Kansas Speaker of the House.  

ETHICS

Dark money:  Politically active nonprofits, often established as 501(c)(4)s and 501(c)(6)s, are increasingly infiltrating and influencing the American political system.  Contributions from these groups are often referred to as “dark money” since many of these organizations are not required to disclose the source of their funding.  These groups receive uncapped amounts of funding from corporations, individuals, and others without the transparency disclosures required of other types of politically active groups.  Over the past two decades, political influence and spending by nonprofits has drastically increased. In the 2006 election cycle, spending by these organizations totaled less than $5.2 million while ten years later in the 2016 election these groups spent more than $238 million.  Political spending by nondisclosure groups hit a record high of $312 million in the 2012 election.²⁰ In 2016,  California passed legislation clarifying existing rules on nonprofit use of public resources for campaign activities.  The law, introduced by then Co-Chair of the California Millennial Caucus Assemblyman Evan Low (Calif.), requires strengthened penalties against nonprofits violating the law and increased transparency rules for certain publicly funded nonprofit organizations engaging in political campaigns.  

The revolving door:  Often referred to as the “revolving door,” state legislatures are regulating the practice of former elected officials leaving public service and becoming lobbyists.  The Maryland Public Integrity Act of 2017 revised regulations including a waiting period before former elected officials can participate in lobbying activities, penalties for the bribery of public officials, and a redefined list of activities considered lobbying.  The Arkansas Elected Officials Ethics, Transparency, and Financial Reform Amendment of 2014, sponsored by DRTF Member Representative Warwick Sabin (Ark.), prohibits members of the legislature and elected constitutional officers from registering as lobbyists in the two years immediately following their time in office.

Term limits:  Term limits are often used to hold government institutions and elected officials accountable by ensuring a continuous renewal of ideas and fresh perspectives while limiting the opportunity for job apathy.  In 2014, DRTF Member Representative Warwick Sabin (Ark.) sponsored legislation establishing term limits for members of the Arkansas General Assembly.  In Georgia, DRTF Member Representative Michael Caldwell (Ga.) along with Georgia Future Caucus member Representative John Pezold sponsored legislation creating term limits for members of the Georgia General Assembly.  “I want to make transparency the norm in Georgia, both during campaign season and the legislative session. I’ve led the charge for legislative term limits and I am holding myself accountable to that by ending my tenure next year” says Caldwell.

Online political spending disclosures:  From voter persuasion to voter suppression, America’s elections are influenced by digital advertisements more than ever before.  Without the disclosure of the sources creating and supporting online ads, the American public is left with little to no knowledge of the origin of the content they view online.  Congress, state legislatures, and social media companies are beginning to address this gap in transparency by introducing regulations and requirements similar to those in place for print, television, and radio political advertisements.  The Honest Ads Act, co-sponsored by more than 20 members of congress including MAP’s Congressional Future Caucus members Representatives Costello, Curbelo, Gallagher, and Kilmer, aims to implement federal standards for online advertisements.  The bill expands the criteria of electioneering communication to include paid political advertisements, requires major internet platforms to maintain a public database of communications purchased for more than $500, and mandates online platforms to make efforts to ban foreign actors from purchasing political ads.²¹

With legislation passed in July of 2018, Maryland is the first state to require social media platforms to track political ads, maintain records of ads, and keep a record of targeted users.²² Similar to regulations for television ads, the law requires social media platforms and newspapers to publicly disclose information on the purchaser of ads, who the advertisement benefits, and the amount of money spent on the advertisement.  Versions of the Maryland legislation are projected to appear across the country in upcoming state legislative sessions. Social media platforms, including Facebook and Twitter, are taking matters into their own hands by introducing self-imposed regulations for political advertisements on their sites.  

On the issues of government accountability and transparency, DRTF Member Representative Michael Caldwell (Ga.) leads by example. In his commitment to remain accountable to his constituents, Caldwell refrains from taking money from political action committees, lobbyists, or out-of-state contributors. At the end of each election campaign, Caldwell depletes his campaign war chest by returning any unused funds back to the appropriate donor(s). In addition to introducing legislation to establish term limits for Georgia’s General Assembly, Caldwell is entering his last term as a member of the Georgia House of Representatives due to self-imposed term limits.

The process of drawing and approving districts maps has dominated much of the national narrative on democracy reform.²³  Every ten years, data from the U.S. Census is used to redraw the boundaries of state and congressional districts, ensuring that districts in each state have roughly the same number of people. Following completion of the 2020 Census, the next round of redistricting is set for 2022.  The extent to which district boundaries are manipulated, or “gerrymandered,” contributes to political polarization and weakens the American democracy. With technological advancements in mapping, lines are too often drawn with surgical precision designed to protect and serve the interest of elected officials rather than those of voters.  As a result of gerrymandered districts, marginalized communities often see their political power further weakened and their policy needs ignored. Recognizing the issues of gerrymandering, lawmakers are examining alternative mapping methods to contribute to a more balanced government and a democracy representative of all Americans.  To ensure a fair and transparent redistricting process, many states are moving towards a process that includes input from entities outside of elected officials. 

Redistricting by state legislature:  In a majority of states across the country, the state legislature is responsible for drawing state districts, congressional districts, or both. Plans drawn by state legislatures often require the approval of a majority in each chamber and are subject to a gubernatorial veto.  In seven states–Arkansas, Connecticut, Florida, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, and Ohio–governors do not have the authority to veto plans approved by the legislature. In a few states, backup commissions are used to draw maps when the legislature is unable to pass plans or the governor vetoes maps approved by the legislature. 

Redistricting by independent commission:  In contrast to redistricting by state legislatures, independent redistricting commissions are composed of individuals who are neither public officials or current lawmakers. These citizen commissions are created through a screening process by an independent authority.  In the November 2018 election, voters in Colorado, Michigan, and Utah passed ballot initiatives to establish independent redistricting commissions. These states will join California and Arizona in adopting the country’s most independent redistricting systems that place the responsibility of drawing districts with a carefully vetted group of citizens.  In 2017, Democracy Reform Task Force member Representative Chaz Beasley (N.C.) co-sponsored bipartisan legislation to establish a nonpartisan redistricting process in North Carolina through a citizen commission.

Redistricting by politician commission:  In two states, Arkansas and Missouri, a commission of politicians either state legislators or other elected officials are responsible for drawing legislative maps.  These members are appointed by party leadership, the governor, or members of the state supreme court. In the 2018 election, voters in Missouri passed a referendum creating the position of a non-partisan state demographer.  The Missouri state demographer is responsible for drawing legislative maps that are sent to the politician redistricting commission for approval.

Redistricting by political appointee commission:  Political appointee commissions are composed of elected officials or individuals organized with the responsibility of redistricting.  In some states, membership of the appointee commission is evenly split among the major parties while other states permit the majority party to seat more members on the committee.  In 2014, DRTF Member Senator Frank LaRose (Ohio) and Future Caucus Member Representative Emilia Sykes were instrumental in passing legislation establishing an Ohio redistricting commission of elected officials and political appointees.  As a result of the 2014 legislation, the Ohio redistricting commission was responsible for drawing state districts while the state legislature was still responsible for drawing congressional districts.  In 2018, LaRose and Sykes were actively engaged in passing legislation transferring the responsibility of drawing Ohio’s congressional districts from the state legislature to the redistricting commission.  

Redistricting by advisory commission:  In some states, an advisory commission of elected officials, non-elected officials, or a mix of the two, is responsible for drawing the maps for approval of the state legislature.  In five states, an advisory commission is responsible for drawing the state maps and in three states an advisory commission is responsible for drawing congressional maps.

Influence of 2020 Census on redistricting:  In April of 2020, the federal Census Bureau will undertake the process of counting every person as outlined in the United States Constitution. Results of the census are used to reallocate and reapportion seats for the US House of Representatives, state legislative districts, school districts, and other local governments.  Geographic shifts in populations can result in shifting district boundaries including a reduction or increase in the number of House members for a state.²⁴

According to research by the Election Data Services, seven states including Texas and Florida are projected to gain seats after the 2020 Census and ten states including New York and Illinois are projected to lose congressional seats.²⁵ It is of vital importance that census data is accurate to properly draw district boundaries based on population. Delaware and Illinois have introduced legislation creating Complete Count Committees tasked with developing an outreach strategy and providing recommendations to ensure full participation. For the first time ever, the 2020 Census will fully use online data collection to count individuals and households.²⁶

In April of 2018, DRTF member Representative David Olsen (Ill.) and Future Caucus Co-Chair Representative Tom Demmer (Ill.) introduced legislation in Illinois calling for a constitutional amendment to establish a redistricting commission for state districts. Representative Olsen and fellow Task Force member Senator Frank LaRose (Ohio) co-authored an NBC News article promoting fair redistricting and calling for the end of gerrymandering across the country.

The process of drawing and approving districts maps has dominated much of the national narrative on democracy reform.  Every ten years, data from the U.S. Census is used to redraw the boundaries of state and congressional districts ensuring that districts in each state have roughly the same number of people—with the next redistricting set for 2022 following completion of the 2020 Census.  The extent to which district boundaries are manipulated, or “gerrymandered,” contributes to political polarization and weakens the American democracy. With technological advancements in mapping, political maps are often drawn with surgical precision designed to protect and serve the interest of candidates rather than those of the voters.  As a result of highly manipulated district lines, marginalized communities often see their political power further weakened and their policy needs ignored. Recognizing the unethical issues of gerrymandering, lawmakers are examining alternative mapping methods to contribute to a more balanced government and a democracy representative of all Americans.  To ensure a fair and transparent redistricting process, many states are moving towards a process including input from entities outside of elected officials. State initiatives to improve the redistricting process include establishing redistricting commissions, redrawing maps by computer, and incorporating a transparent and public input period during the process.

Redistricting by state legislature:  In a majority of states across the country, the state legislature is responsible for drawing state districts, congressional districts, or both. Plans drawn by state legislatures often require the approval of a majority in each chamber and subject to a gubernatorial veto.  In seven states, Arkansas, Connecticut, Florida, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri and Ohio, governors do not have the authority to veto plans approved by the legislature. In a few states, backup commissions are used to draw maps when the legislature is unable to pass plans or the governor vetoes maps approved by the legislature.  

Redistricting by independent commission:  In contrast to redistricting by state legislatures, independent redistricting commissions are composed of individuals who are neither public officials or current lawmakers, and are created through a screening process of an independent authority.  In the November 2018 election, voters in Colorado, Michigan, and Utah passed ballot initiatives to establish independent redistricting commissions. These states will join California and Arizona in adopting the country’s most independent redistricting systems that places the responsibility of drawing districts into the hands of a carefully vetted group of citizens.  In 2017, Democracy Reform Task Force member Representative Chaz Beasley (N.C.) co-sponsored bipartisan legislation to establish a nonpartisan redistricting process in North Carolina through a citizen commission.

Redistricting by politician commission:  In two states, Arkansas and Missouri, a commission of politicians either state legislators or other elected officials are responsible for drawing legislative maps.  These members are appointed by party leadership, the governor, or members of the state supreme court. In the 2018 election, voters in Missouri passed a referendum creating the position of a non-partisan state demographer.  The state demographer is responsible for drawing legislative maps that are then sent to the politician redistricting commission for their approval.

Redistricting by political appointee commission:  Political appointee commissions are composed of elected officials or individuals who are appointed by elected officials or political parties.  In some states, membership of the appointee commission is evenly split among the major parties while other states permit the majority party to appoint more members of the committee.  In 2014, DRTF Member Senator Frank LaRose (Ohio) and Ohio Future Caucus Member Senator Emilia Sykes (Ohio) were instrumental in passing legislation establishing an Ohio redistricting commission.  The Ohio redistricting commission, composed of elected officials and political appointees, was responsible for drawing state districts while the state legislature was still responsible for drawing congressional districts.  In 2018, LaRose and Sykes were engaged in the passage of legislation transferring the responsibility of drawing Ohio’s congressional districts from the state legislature to the redistricting commission.  

Redistricting by advisory commission:  In some states, an advisory commission of elected officials, non-elected officials, or a mix, is responsible for drawing the maps and recommending them to the state legislature for approval.  In five states, an advisory commission is responsible for drawing the state maps and in three states an advisory commission is responsible for drawing congressional maps.

Influence of 2020 Census on redistricting: In April 2020, the federal Census Bureau will undertake the task of counting every person in the United States as outlined in the Constitution’s 14th Amendment.  Results of the census are used to allocate and apportion seats for the US House of Representatives, state legislative districts, school districts and other local governments.  Geographic shifts in populations can result in shifting district boundaries including a reduction or increase in the number of House members for a state.

According to research by the Election Data Services, seven states including Texas and Florida are projected to gain seats after the 2020 census and ten states including New York and Illinois are projected to lose Congressional seats. It is vital that census data is accurate in order for lawmakers to properly draw district boundaries based on population. Efforts to accurately count every person include legislation in states such as Delaware and Illinois to create Complete Count Committees to develop an outreach strategy and provide recommendations to ensure full participation. For the first time ever, and In an effort to bring the process into the 21st century, the 2020 Census will fully use online data collection to count individuals and households.

“Redistricting” case study

In April of 2018, DRTF member Representative David Olsen (Ill.) and Illinois Future Caucus Co-Chair Representative Tom Demmer (Ill.) introduced legislation in Illinois calling for a constitutional amendment to establish a redistricting commission for state districts.  Representative Olsen and fellow Task Force Member Senator Frank LaRose (Ohio) co-authored an NBC News article promoting fair redistricting and calling for the end of gerrymandering.

The future of the nation depends on current efforts to restore trust and engagement in democracy.  Throughout the country, young people are turning out in record numbers to register, vote, and run for office.  No longer is the millennial generation willing to passively wait its turn or trust that someone else will fix the problems of America’s democracy. This creates a tremendous opportunity for the next generation of leaders to take matters into their own hands, and work collaboratively and creatively to solve some of the United States' most systemic problems.

As a result of the Millennial Action Project’s Democracy Reform Task Force, state legislators across the country are taking the lead to advancing common sense approaches to good governance. While it is clear that there is no catch all solution to fix American democracy, MAP and members of the Democracy Task Force will continue to advocate for reform towards liberty, justice, and representation for all.

¹http://iop.harvard.edu/youth-poll/fall-2017-poll

²http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/11/21/millennials-gen-x-increase-their-ranks-in-the-house-especially-among-democrats/

³https://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/automatic-voter-registration

⁴http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/same-day-registration.aspx

⁵https://www.demos.org/publication/what-same-day-registration-where-it-available#1

⁶https://www.brennancenter.org/publication/early-voting-what-works

⁷https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/issue-briefs/2016/03/colorado-voting-reforms-early-results

⁸http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/all-mail-elections.aspx

⁹https://journalistsresource.org/studies/politics/citizen-action/voter-turnout-registration-teen-youth

¹⁰http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/preregistration-for-young-voters.aspx

 ¹¹http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/ranked-choice-voting.aspx

¹²https://www.maine.gov/sos/cec/elec/results/index.html

¹³http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2015/12/23/in-state-legislatures-millennials-are-often-left-out

¹⁴http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/felon-voting-rights.aspx

¹⁵https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2016/07/18/what-millennials-want-from-next-president/SkAFxoKXKMGcdOlI2oJtXP/story.html

¹⁶http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/2017-campaign-finance-enactments.aspx

¹⁷http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/2017-campaign-finance-enactments.aspx

¹⁸http://seec.ct.gov/Portal/CEP/CEPLanding

¹⁹https://www.brennancenter.org/blog/another-election-winner-%E2%80%94public-financing

²⁰https://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/nonprof_summ.php?cycle=2018&type=type&range=tot

²¹https://www.brennancenter.org/blog/we-regulate-tv-and-radio-ads-facebook-ads-should-be-no-different

²²http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/politics/bs-md-facebook-ads-20180406-story.html

²³http://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/who-draws-maps-states-redrawing-congressional-and-state-district-lines

²⁴https://www.census.gov/about/what.html

²⁵https://www.electiondataservices.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/NR_Appor17c3wTablesMapsC2.pdf

²⁶https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/decennial/2020/program-management/planning-docs/ISR_detailed_operational_plan.pdf