Civic Minute

The End of Gerrymandering

Civic Media — Thu, 17 Sep 2026 20:40:46 +0000

We've talked about gerrymandering — how politicians draw district lines to choose their voters instead of the other way around. We've talked about how Wisconsin fought all the way to the Supreme Court to get fairer state legislative maps, and how the congressional maps are still gerrymandered. But what if the lines didn't matter that much in the first place?

With single-member districts, drawing the lines is the game. Shift a few neighborhoods from one district to another and you can flip the outcome. But in a multi-member district that elects five representatives proportionally, there's almost nothing you can do with the lines to rig the result. If a party wins forty percent of the vote, they get roughly forty percent of the seats. Period.

Multi-member districts take the power away from maps and the backroom deals and gives it back to you, the voter.

Learn More

Why multi-member districts eliminate gerrymandering: In single-member districts, shifting a few neighborhoods across a boundary can flip the outcome — that's how gerrymandering works. In a 5-member district with proportional voting, moving those same neighborhoods barely changes the result because seats are allocated proportionally. The more seats per district, the less the lines matter. (Protect Democracy)

FairVote simulations show that under proportional ranked-choice voting, seat shares closely match vote shares regardless of how district lines are drawn. The efficiency gap — the primary metric for measuring gerrymandering — essentially disappears under proportional systems. (FairVote)

The math makes it impossible. In a 5-member district, a party needs roughly 17% of the vote to win one seat. That means even a minority party in any region can win representation. You can't "pack" or "crack" voters when the threshold for winning a seat is that low — there's no way to draw lines that waste enough votes to lock a party out. (Sightline Institute)

The national redistricting arms race proves the point. Six states redrew their maps between 2024 and 2026 for partisan advantage. Independent redistricting commissions help, but they can be overridden (as California's was via ballot measure). Multi-member districts are the structural solution — they make the weapon useless rather than trying to keep it out of the wrong hands. (See CM-12, The Redistricting Arms Race)

The Fair Representation Act (H.R. 4632) would implement this at the federal level for U.S. House elections — multi-member districts with proportional ranked-choice voting. (FairVote)

Related Civic Minute segments: Packing and Cracking (CM-5), The Redistricting Arms Race (CM-12), How Multi-Member Districts Work (CM-14), What It Would Take (CM-17)

The Redistricting War Just Escalated

Civic Media — Thu, 17 Sep 2026 20:40:18 +0000

Last year, a redistricting war broke out. Texas redrew its maps to favor Republicans. California hit back to favor Democrats. Six states redrew in all — the most mid-decade redistricting in over fifty years.

Then, on April twenty-ninth, the Supreme Court narrowed Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act — the main tool for protecting minority representation. Within weeks, Florida, Tennessee, Louisiana, and Alabama moved to eliminate majority-minority districts. Tennessee eliminated its only Black-majority district in eight days. South Carolina's Republican senators refused. Georgia's governor declined.

As long as who draws the lines determines who wins, this fight never ends. There's a bill in Congress called the Fair Representation Act that would replace single-member districts with proportional representation. You can't gerrymander a district that elects five people. That's not a ceasefire. That's ending the war.

Learn More

The redistricting arms race (2025-2026). Six states — California, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, Texas, and Utah — enacted new congressional maps between the 2024 and 2026 elections. This was the most mid-decade redistricting since the 1800s. Before 2025, only two states had conducted voluntary mid-decade redistricting since 1970. The cycle began when President Trump pressured Texas to redraw its maps in summer 2025. Democrats responded through ballot measures in California (Prop 50, November 2025) and Virginia (constitutional amendment, April 21, 2026, passing 51-49%). Virginia's effort did not survive: the Virginia Supreme Court blocked the resulting map in May 2026, costing Democrats up to four seats — which is why the script names only California. (Ballotpedia; CRS; ABC News; CNN; NBC News)

Then the Supreme Court changed the game. On April 29, 2026, the Court ruled 6-3 in Louisiana v. Callais to sharply narrow Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. The ruling requires proof of intentional racial discrimination to challenge maps — a standard Congress specifically rejected when it amended Section 2 in 1982. Justice Kagan's dissent called Section 2 "all but a dead letter." Combined with Rucho v. Common Cause (2019), which made partisan gerrymandering legal, states can now defend any map by claiming partisan rather than racial motive — even though race and party are nearly impossible to separate. (CNN; Axios; Democracy Docket; Campaign Legal Center)

The cascade — and where it stopped.

Florida (April 29): Legislature passed new maps the same day as the ruling. DeSantis signed May 4. Projected shift from 20-8 R to 24-4 R — four Democratic/majority-minority seats eliminated. Now facing challenges under Florida's Fair Districts Amendment; the state Supreme Court declined to halt its use.
Tennessee (May 5-7): Special session convened. Memphis — the state's only majority-Black district (TN-9) — carved three ways. Rep. Steve Cohen announced retirement. Democrats held press conference at the Lorraine Motel, where MLK was assassinated. Trump personally called Gov. Lee. Eight days from ruling to signed map.
Louisiana (April 30): Suspended congressional primaries after early voting had already begun. Legislature began hearings May 8.
Alabama (May 8-11): Did not redraw — asked SCOTUS to let it revert to its 2023 map, the one a federal court had barred as discriminatory in Allen v. Milligan. On May 11, SCOTUS granted the request via shadow docket, effectively overturning its own 2023 ruling without oral arguments.
South Carolina: the redraw failed. The Republican-controlled state Senate rejected it twice — declining to extend the session May 12, then rejecting the map May 26 — despite direct pressure from President Trump. Republican Sen. Tom Davis called the process "constitutionally and practically indefensible." Gov. McMaster conceded there would be no new map for 2026. Rep. James Clyburn's majority-Black district survives.
Georgia: declined. Republican Gov. Brian Kemp refused mid-decade redistricting for 2026, though the state may revisit for 2028.
Mississippi: Gov. Reeves's threatened special session did not produce a new congressional map for 2026.

Where it landed. Ten states enacted new congressional maps for 2026 — the most mid-decade redistricting of the modern era. Republicans are positioned to gain as many as 16 seats, Democrats as many as 6; analysts put the realistic Republican net at 5 to 10. (Earlier Democracy Docket estimates of up to 18 Republican seats predated the South Carolina and Georgia outcomes.) (Ballotpedia; CBS News; NBC News; NBC on South Carolina; PBS NewsHour; Slate; Wikipedia)

The Fair Representation Act (H.R. 4632). Would repeal the 1967 Uniform Congressional District Act and replace single-member districts with multi-member districts (3-5 seats each) elected by proportional ranked-choice voting. In a 5-member district, a party winning 40% of the vote gets roughly 2 of 5 seats — making gerrymandering structurally impossible regardless of who draws the lines. FairVote simulations show seat shares closely matching vote shares under any district configuration. (FairVote; Protect Democracy)

The Redistricting Reform Act (H.R. 5449 / S. 2885). Would ban mid-decade redistricting and require every state to establish independent redistricting commissions. 56 House cosponsors, 3 Senate. All Democratic + 1 Independent. This fixes the process but not the structural problem — single-member districts can still be gerrymandered even by commissions. (Rep. Lofgren)

Why proportional representation is the permanent fix. The Fair Representation Act doesn't just ban gerrymandering — it makes it structurally pointless. In a 5-member district, the threshold to win a seat is roughly 17% (Droop quota). No matter how you draw the lines, minorities large enough to meet that threshold will elect representatives. The efficiency gap — the standard measure of gerrymandering — essentially disappears under proportional systems. This is why the script says "You can't gerrymander a district that elects five people." (Sightline Institute; FairVote simulations)

Related Civic Minute segments: What the Voting Rights Act Was For (CM-54), The Partisan Cover (CM-55), The Redistricting Arms Race (CM-12, retired), What Gerrymandering Is (CM-7), How Multi-Member Districts Work (CM-14), The End of Gerrymandering (CM-16)

The Burden, by the Numbers

Civic Media — Thu, 17 Sep 2026 20:40:08 +0000

Your federal return doesn't show your whole tax bill. There's payroll tax on every paycheck. Sales tax at every register. Gas tax at the pump. Property tax on your home — or baked into your rent.

Add it all up, and the picture changes. The federal income tax is progressive — meaning higher earners pay a higher percentage. But state and local taxes run the other way. In most states, the poorest fifth of households pays a larger share of its income in state and local taxes than the richest one percent. When you spend everything you earn, everything you earn gets taxed.

Combine it all, and the total burden doesn't climb steadily as incomes rise. It looks less like a staircase and more like a hump — rising through the middle class, then bending down at the very top. The four hundred wealthiest Americans pay a lower overall rate than the average American.

Learn More

The taxes your 1040 doesn't show. Beyond the federal income tax: payroll taxes (15.3% combined, from the first dollar of wages), state and local sales taxes (levied in 45 states), excise taxes (18.4¢/gallon federal gas tax plus state gas taxes averaging ~33¢), and property taxes (paid directly by owners and passed through to renters in rent). For roughly two-thirds of households, payroll taxes alone exceed federal income taxes. (CRS R47062; Tax Foundation)

State and local taxes are upside-down. ITEP's Who Pays? (7th edition, 2024) — the only distributional analysis of tax systems in all 50 states — found the national average effective state and local rate is 11.4% for the lowest-income 20%, 10.5% for the middle 20%, and 7.2% for the top 1%. The poorest fifth pays a roughly 60% higher rate than the top 1%. In 41 states, the top 1% pays a lower rate than every other income group; in 42 states, lower than the bottom 20%; and 35+ states tax their poorest residents at a higher rate than anyone else. The most regressive states: Florida, Washington, Tennessee, Pennsylvania, Nevada, South Dakota, Texas, Illinois, Arkansas, Louisiana. The least: D.C., Minnesota, Vermont, New York, California. The main driver is overreliance on sales and excise taxes — households that spend all their income get taxed on all of it, while households that save and invest large shares do not. (ITEP, Who Pays? 7th ed.; ITEP summary)

Wisconsin, Michigan, Minnesota. Minnesota is one of only a handful of states whose tax system reduces inequality — ITEP ranks it among the least regressive in the nation (graduated income tax, refundable credits). Wisconsin and Michigan fall in the middle of the pack: both are less regressive than the national average but still tax their lowest-income residents at higher effective rates than their top 1%. (ITEP state profiles)

The combined picture: a hump, not a staircase. Stacking federal, state, and local taxes: the system rises through most of the income distribution — the progressive federal income tax outweighs regressive state/local taxes for middle and upper-middle earners — then flattens and bends down at the very top, where income shifts from wages (taxed up to 37% plus payroll) to capital gains and dividends (taxed at 20-23.8%, no payroll). ITEP's all-taxes analysis finds the overall system only barely progressive: in 2024, the richest 1% received 20.1% of all income and paid 23.9% of all taxes — shares that nearly match. (ITEP, Who Pays Taxes in America 2024)

The top 400. UC Berkeley economists Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman (The Triumph of Injustice, 2019) calculated that the 400 wealthiest Americans paid a total effective tax rate — all taxes, all levels of government — of about 23% in 2018, below the ~28% national average and, for the first time in U.S. history, below the rate paid by the working class. Methodology notes: These estimates are contested — economists Gerald Auten and David Splinter argue different income-allocation assumptions yield a more progressive picture. Meanwhile, the White House Council of Economic Advisers' 2021 analysis, which counts unrealized capital gains as income, found the top 400 paid just 8.2% — far lower than Saez-Zucman's figure. The script's claim uses the middle-ground mainstream estimate. Under any of the three methodologies, the rate at the very top falls below the rate on upper-middle wage earners. (Saez & Zucman; White House CEA)

Why the very top pays less. The composition effect from the rest of the Tax History arc: at the very top, income stops being wages (subject to income + payroll tax) and becomes capital gains, dividends, and untaxed appreciation. See Same Dollar Different Tax (the 37% vs. 20% gap), What We Tax (what escapes taxation entirely), and PM's Buy Borrow Die (how appreciation is monetized without ever becoming taxable income).

Related Civic Minute segments: What We Tax, Same Dollar Different Tax, One Direction, The Ledger, The Napkin. Related PM scripts: Who Actually Pays (the "ladder bends back down" — same finding, advocacy voice), You Already Pay a Wealth Tax.

The Geography Trap

Civic Media — Thu, 17 Sep 2026 20:30:41 +0000

If you're a conservative in Madison, your state representative is a Democrat — and that's not changing. If you're a liberal in Wood County, your rep is a Republican — and that's not changing either. No matter how involved you are, your representative doesn't need your vote.

Now imagine combining five of those single-member districts into one larger district that elects five representatives. In an area where voters split roughly sixty-forty, instead of five seats all going to one party, you'd get three representatives for the majority and two for the minority. That conservative in Madison gets a voice. That liberal in Wood County gets a voice. Nearly every voter helps elect someone who actually represents them.

That's what multi-member districts with proportional representation look like. Not a different set of lines drawn to favor someone else — just a system where the math finally works for everyone.

Learn More

The geography problem is real — and it hurts both sides. Democrats are concentrated in cities; Republicans dominate rural areas. Under single-member districts, a conservative in Madison (Biden ~75% in 2020) and a liberal in Wood County (Trump ~62% in 2020) are both permanently shut out of representation.

"Unintentional gerrymandering": Stanford political scientist Jonathan Rodden and University of Michigan's Jowei Chen demonstrated in their landmark 2013 paper that even with perfectly drawn maps, Democrats' geographic concentration in cities produces a structural seat disadvantage under single-member districts. They showed that "in many states, Democrats are inefficiently concentrated in large cities and smaller industrial agglomerations such that they can expect to win fewer than 50% of the seats when they win 50% of the votes." (Chen & Rodden, Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 2013)

Rodden on proportional representation as the fix: "There is nothing about population density that automatically generates this kind of cleavage... But single-member-district, majoritarian systems that produce two parties that hate each other — that's the worst of all worlds." He argues proportional representation eliminates the geographic bias entirely. (Stanford GSB)

Multi-member districts solve the geography trap. By combining several single-member districts into one larger district electing 3-5 representatives, the math changes. Even if a district is only 35% "blue," it can still elect representation. The more seats per district, the harder it becomes to gerrymander — most multi-winner districts are functionally impossible to manipulate for partisan gain. (Protect Democracy; FairVote)

Geographic sorting is accelerating. Americans increasingly live near people who share their political views, making more districts lopsided. Even perfectly drawn maps can't produce proportional outcomes under winner-take-all rules when the underlying population is geographically sorted. (Cambridge University Press)

Further reading:

Jonathan Rodden, Why Cities Lose: The Deep Roots of the Urban-Rural Political Divide (Basic Books, 2019) — the definitive book on geographic sorting and electoral bias
Chen & Rodden, "Unintentional Gerrymandering" (Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 2013)
Bill Bishop, The Big Sort: Why the Clustering of Like-Minded America Is Tearing Us Apart (Mariner Books, 2009)
Brookings, "A Primer on Gerrymandering and Political Polarization"
Protect Democracy: Proportional Representation, Explained

Related Civic Minute segments: How Multi-Member Districts Work (CM-14), The End of Gerrymandering (CM-16), Competition (CM-8)

What We Tax

Civic Media — Thu, 17 Sep 2026 20:30:07 +0000

Taxes pay for roads, schools, and the military. But where do the taxes come from?

Mostly, we tax work. Payroll taxes take fifteen point three percent starting with your very first dollar — no deductions, no exemptions. Income tax comes on top of that. If your money comes from a paycheck, the system is built to collect.

Wealth is a different story. Stocks that grow in value are never taxed until they're sold — and if they're passed down at death, often never taxed at all. Inheritances under thirty million dollars per couple: untaxed.

America has exactly one true wealth tax: the property tax. For a typical family, it falls on their biggest asset — their home, every year. The biggest assets of the wealthy — stocks and bonds — get no annual bill.

We tax what working families have. We barely touch what wealthy families hold. We argue constantly about how much to tax. We almost never ask what to tax.

Learn More

The payroll tax: first dollar, no deductions. The Congressional Research Service describes the structure plainly: payroll taxes apply "to the first dollar of wages" with "no deductions and limited credits." The combined rate is 15.3% — 7.65% withheld from the employee and 7.65% paid by the employer (self-employed workers pay the full 15.3% directly). Economists, including the Congressional Budget Office in its standard convention, attribute the employer share to workers in the form of lower wages. There is no standard deduction, no personal exemption, and no zero bracket: a worker earning $8,000 a year pays the same payroll rate on those dollars as one earning $80,000. The Social Security portion stops entirely at $184,500 (2026) — income above the cap is exempt. Payroll taxes are the second-largest federal revenue source, and roughly two-thirds of American households pay more in payroll taxes than in federal income tax. (CRS R47062; Tax Policy Center)

Wealth: taxed on realization, or never. Capital gains are taxed only when assets are sold (the "realization principle"). Assets held until death receive a stepped-up basis (IRC §1014): the accumulated lifetime gain is erased for tax purposes, and heirs inherit at current market value. Combined with borrowing against appreciating assets, this is the "buy, borrow, die" strategy documented by ProPublica's IRS Files. The federal estate tax applies only above $15 million per person / $30 million per married couple (made permanent by the OBBBA, July 2025) — 99.9%+ of estates owe nothing. Six states levy inheritance taxes at lower thresholds; there is no federal tax on inheritances below the exemption. (ProPublica; Tax Foundation on OBBBA)

The property tax as America's only wealth tax. A wealth tax is an annual levy on the value of what you own, not what you earn. No U.S. jurisdiction taxes net worth — but every state taxes real property annually on its assessed value. That makes the property tax the one true wealth tax in the American system. For the middle class, it lands on their principal asset: Federal Reserve Survey of Consumer Finances data show home equity constitutes the majority of middle-income families' net worth, with the bottom three income quintiles holding roughly half their wealth in their primary residence. The wealthy hold their fortunes differently: the top 10% own roughly 78% of business equity and 75% of directly held stocks, and for top earners only about a fifth of assets are in their homes. Stocks, bonds, and business equity face no annual value-based tax — only taxes on realization or dividends. (Fed SCF via Richmond Fed; NBER)

Important precision: who pays property taxes in aggregate. Residential property accounts for about 44% of total property tax collections nationwide; non-residential (commercial and industrial) pays roughly 56%, because commercial property is typically taxed at higher rates (about 1.7x the homestead rate on average, higher in 39 states) even though residential property makes up over 60% of assessed valuation. This is why the script frames the point from the household's perspective — the property tax hits the typical family's biggest asset annually, while the wealthy family's biggest assets face no annual levy — rather than claiming homes fund most collections. Note also that renters bear property taxes indirectly through rent, so the tax reaches households that own nothing at all. (Tax Foundation; Lincoln Institute)

The composition is the choice. Stepping back: the American revenue system collects heavily from labor (payroll + income tax on wages, withheld automatically), moderately from consumption (state/local sales taxes), annually from middle-class housing wealth (property tax), and lightly-to-never from financial wealth (realization-only, stepped-up basis, high estate exemption). None of this is a law of nature — other wealthy democracies weight the mix differently. What a society taxes reflects what it has chosen to reach — and what it has chosen to leave alone.

Related Civic Minute segments: One Direction, Same Dollar Different Tax, The Ledger, The Napkin (Tax History arc). Related PM scripts: You Already Pay a Wealth Tax (the property-tax argument from the advocacy angle — this CM script is its descriptive cousin), Buy Borrow Die, The Stepped-Up Basis, Social Security & the Wage Cap.

The Ledger

Civic Media — Mon, 14 Sep 2026 20:50:07 +0000

For decades, Washington ran a two-step. Step one: cut taxes. Step two — years later, when deficits grew — declare that we can't afford our programs, and cut those too.

Reagan cut taxes in the eighties; the squeeze came for housing, education, and job training. The deficits of that era helped push Clinton to sign welfare reform in the nineties. After the Bush tax cuts, a debt-ceiling standoff produced the sequester — automatic cuts to everything from Head Start to housing vouchers, signed by Obama. Both parties have danced this dance.

The tax cuts flow mostly to the rich. The spending cuts come out of programs everyone else uses. And the two steps are always presented as unrelated.

Last year, the two-step became a one-step. The One Big Beautiful Bill gave the top one percent roughly a trillion dollars in tax cuts — and cut roughly a trillion from Medicaid. Same bill. No waiting. No pretending.

Learn More

The Reagan-era squeeze. Budget Director David Stockman's 1981 cuts hit food stamps, education, job training, and unemployment insurance alongside the tax cuts — and the squeeze deepened through the decade as deficits grew. HUD's budget authority fell from $32.2 billion in 1981 to $6.9 billion in 1989 — a 78% reduction, a figure documented by the libertarian Cato Institute. New public housing authorizations fell from ~55,000 units in 1979 to zero in 1984. The homelessness crisis that emerged in the 1980s is widely linked to these cuts. (Cato Institute; Urban Institute; WRAP)

Clinton and welfare reform. In 1996, amid the deficit politics of the era and after two vetoes, President Clinton signed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act — "ending welfare as we know it." It abolished AFDC (a 61-year-old entitlement), replaced it with TANF block grants, and imposed time limits and work requirements. It passed with strong Republican and substantial Democratic support. A Democratic president cutting a program for the poor — the squeeze has never belonged to one party.

The sequester. In 2011, House Republicans refused to raise the debt ceiling — with debt driven substantially by the Bush tax cuts, two wars, and the Great Recession — without matching spending cuts. The resulting Budget Control Act created a "supercommittee" to find $1.2 trillion in savings, enforced by automatic across-the-board cuts ("sequestration") if it failed. It failed. The sequester hit in March 2013: Head Start slots eliminated (~57,000 children), housing vouchers cut (~70,000), research grants slashed, along with defense. President Obama signed the BCA, and his negotiating team proposed the sequester trigger design — assuming it was too painful to ever take effect. (CBPP; Bipartisan Policy Center)

The one-step: OBBBA. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act (July 2025) reduced federal tax revenue by $4.5 trillion over ten years while cutting $1.4 trillion in spending. The parallel the script draws comes from the Center for American Progress's analysis of official JCT and CBO data: the tax cuts flowing to the top 1 percent of earners total approximately $1 trillion over the decade — roughly equal to the Medicaid cuts (~$911 billion per KFF/CBO; ~$1 trillion per CAP). CBO estimates the health provisions will leave 10 million more Americans uninsured by 2034. The top 1 percent gain more than $50,000 per year on average; Americans earning under $15,000 see taxes rise. (CAP: "$1 Trillion in Medicaid Cuts — $1 Trillion in Tax Giveaways"; FactCheck.org; Bipartisan Policy Center; CRFB)

The "starve the beast" strategy. The two-step has a name, coined by conservatives themselves: "starve the beast" — the theory that cutting taxes first would force spending cuts later by creating deficits. Economist Bruce Bartlett, a Reagan policy adviser, has documented the strategy's history and its failure: in practice, tax cuts didn't restrain spending; they just grew deficits. The OBBBA's same-bill structure abandoned the sequencing entirely. (Bartlett, "Starve the Beast: Origins and Development of a Budgetary Metaphor")

The counterpoint. Defenders of the OBBBA structure argue that pairing tax cuts with spending reductions is more fiscally honest than the old two-step — at least the trade is visible and voted on together. Cato characterizes the Medicaid changes as slowing spending growth (from $1.025T to $864B annually by 2035) rather than absolute cuts, and emphasizes work requirements as welfare reform rather than benefit cuts. The CBO's bottom line either way: 10 million more uninsured, and $3.4 trillion added to deficits — the spending cuts offset less than a third of the tax cuts. (Cato; Penn Wharton)

Related Civic Minute segments: One Direction (Tax History), The Napkin (Tax History), Same Dollar Different Tax (Tax History). Related PM scripts: Medicaid and the Big Beautiful Bill, The 50-Year Experiment.

The Napkin

Civic Media — Mon, 14 Sep 2026 20:30:07 +0000

In 1974, economist Arthur Laffer sketched a curve on a napkin for two White House aides: Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld. The idea was simple: at a tax rate of zero, the government collects nothing. At one hundred percent, nobody works — so it also collects nothing. Somewhere in between, there's a peak.

That napkin became the argument for fifty years of tax cuts: if you cut rates, economic activity and revenue will actually go up.

And the curve is real. When Kennedy cut the top rate from ninety-one percent, revenue rose. Rates that high were probably past the peak.

But the curve doesn't tell you where the peak is. Most economists put it somewhere above sixty percent. Today's top rate is thirty-seven. Kansas tried the experiment in 2012 — deep cuts, promised growth. Instead, revenue collapsed and schools went to four-day weeks. A Republican legislature reversed the cuts over the governor's veto.

The napkin was right. The question nobody asks is which side of the curve we're on.

Learn More

The napkin story. In December 1974, University of Chicago economist Arthur Laffer had dinner at the Two Continents Restaurant in Washington with Wall Street Journal editorial writer Jude Wanniski and two Ford White House officials: Chief of Staff Donald Rumsfeld and his deputy, Dick Cheney (Laffer's former Yale classmate). The topic was President Ford's proposed tax surcharge to fight inflation. Laffer argued the surcharge wouldn't raise the projected revenue — and sketched a curve on a napkin showing that revenue is zero at both 0% and 100% tax rates, with a peak somewhere between. Wanniski popularized the idea, naming it "the Laffer Curve" in a 1978 essay. It became the intellectual foundation of supply-side economics and the Reagan tax cuts. (Trivia: the cloth napkin displayed at the Smithsonian is a later keepsake recreation — the original was paper, and Laffer himself says he doesn't remember the original sketch.) (Smithsonian; Laffer's own account via Heritage; Smithsonian Magazine; NYT on the napkin's authenticity)

The curve is real — as far as it goes. No economist disputes the basic logic: a peak exists. The debate is entirely about where. When the Kennedy-Johnson cuts took the top rate from 91% to 70% (Revenue Act of 1964), federal revenue rose in the following years — rates that high, applied atop a code full of shelters, were likely past or near the revenue-maximizing point. This is the strongest genuine evidence for the supply-side position, and it's why the argument had real intellectual force in the 1970s. (Tax Project Institute; Concord Coalition)

Where's the peak? The most-cited academic estimate, from economists Peter Diamond (MIT, Nobel laureate) and Emmanuel Saez (Berkeley), puts the revenue-maximizing top rate at approximately 73%. Other mainstream estimates cluster between 60% and 80%. Today's top federal rate is 37%. In a 2012 IGM Chicago survey of leading economists across the political spectrum, essentially none believed current U.S. rates were on the far side of the peak — meaning essentially none believed a rate cut today would raise revenue. (Diamond & Saez, Journal of Economic Perspectives 2011; IGM Forum)

Kansas: the real live experiment. In 2012, Governor Sam Brownback signed one of the largest state tax cuts in U.S. history, cutting the top rate from 6.45% to 4.9% and exempting pass-through business income entirely. He called it, in his own words, "a real live experiment" in supply-side policy. The results: revenue plunged, producing a $900 million shortfall; the state's bond rating was downgraded twice; reserves were exhausted; road maintenance stretched from a 10-year to a 50-year schedule; and some school districts moved to four-day weeks. Promised job growth (up to 25,000/year) never materialized — Kansas lost jobs the first year and lagged all its neighbors. In June 2017, the Republican-controlled legislature repealed the cuts over Brownback's veto (Senate 27-13, House 88-31). Revenue stabilized, downgrades stopped, and schools returned to five-day weeks. Brookings called it "one of the cleanest experiments for measuring the effects of tax cuts on economic growth in the U.S." (CBPP; NPR; Brookings; Marketopia summary)

The honest bottom line. The Laffer curve is genuinely useful for evaluating claims: it tells you that "tax cuts pay for themselves" is true at some rates and false at others. At 91%, cuts plausibly raised revenue. At 37%, five decades of evidence — Reagan's deficits, the Bush deficits, Kansas, the CBO's scoring of the TCJA — says they don't. A listener equipped with this distinction can evaluate the next tax proposal on its merits: the question to ask isn't "is the Laffer curve real?" but "what rate are we at, and where's the peak?"

Related Civic Minute segments: One Direction (Tax History — the 60-year rate timeline). Related PM scripts: The 50-Year Experiment, Who Actually Pays.

One Direction

Civic Media — Fri, 21 Aug 2026 17:50:12 +0000

In 1960, the tax rate for the top bracket — that is, income earned beyond the first four million or so in today’s dollars — was ninety-one percent. Today, that top rate is thirty-seven. The drop didn’t happen all at once — and it didn’t happen under one party.

Kennedy started the cuts, bringing the top rate to seventy. Reagan took it down to twenty-eight. Then it went up — twice. The first President Bush broke his "read my lips" pledge and raised it, because he believed the deficit mattered more. Clinton raised it again, to thirty-nine point six, to shrink the deficit further. Critics predicted a recession. Instead, the nineties delivered the longest economic expansion in a century — and by the end of the decade, the budget was balanced.

Since then, it’s been mostly one direction: Bush Two cut rates, then Trump — twice. Each cut was sold as temporary. Nearly all became permanent.

Sixty years later, the wealthiest Americans pay less than half the top rate they did in 1960.

Learn More

The top bracket in 1960. The 91% rate applied to taxable income over $400,000 for married couples — roughly $4.3 million in today’s dollars. Only about 0.002% of households had any income taxed at that rate. Everything below the threshold was taxed at lower bracket rates, exactly as it works today. (Tax Policy Center; Tax Foundation)

The important caveat: almost nobody paid 91%. Deductions, shelters, and preferential treatment of capital gains meant effective rates were far below statutory rates. During the 1950s, the top 1% paid an average effective federal income tax rate of about 17% (roughly 42% including all state, local, and payroll taxes). By 1966, 155 taxpayers with incomes above $200,000 paid zero federal income tax — a revelation that led to the creation of the Alternative Minimum Tax. Still, economists Saez and Zucman calculate that the effective total tax rate on the 400 wealthiest Americans has fallen from about 56% in 1960 to about 23% today. (LegalClarity; Manhattan Institute / Piketty-Saez)

The timeline of the top rate:

1960: 91% (over $400K married)
1964-65: Revenue Act of 1964 — proposed by Kennedy, signed by Johnson — cuts to 70%
1981-86: Reagan cuts to 50% (ERTA), then 28% (Tax Reform Act of 1986) — the lowest since 1916
1990: George H.W. Bush signs OBRA 1990, raising the rate to 31%, breaking his "read my lips: no new taxes" convention pledge. The deficit-driven decision fractured his party and contributed to his 1992 loss, though the recession and Perot’s candidacy also played major roles.
1993: Clinton signs OBRA 1993, raising the top rate to 39.6% for deficit reduction — without a single Republican vote. Critics predicted recession; the 1990s instead produced the longest economic expansion recorded to that point (120 months, 1991-2001) and four consecutive budget surpluses (FY1998-2001) — the only balanced budgets since 1969.
2001-03: George W. Bush cuts the top rate to 35% (EGTRRA/JGTRRA), with sunset provisions requiring expiration in 2010.
2010-12: Obama extends all Bush cuts for two years (December 2010 deal — the event that prompted the founding of the Patriotic Millionaires), then signs ATRA 2012, making the Bush cuts permanent for incomes below $400,000 and restoring 39.6% above that threshold.
2017: Trump signs TCJA, cutting the top rate to 37%, expiring 2025.
2025: The One Big Beautiful Bill Act makes the TCJA rates permanent.

(Tax Project Institute; Wolters Kluwer; NTU historical brackets)

"Sold as temporary, nearly all became permanent." The Bush cuts were enacted with 2010 sunsets to comply with budget rules; ATRA 2012 made them permanent for 98%+ of taxpayers. The TCJA’s individual provisions were scheduled to expire at the end of 2025; the OBBBA made them permanent. The only major provisions ever allowed to expire were the top-bracket Bush cuts (2013).

The nineties expansion caveat. The 1990s boom had many causes: the dot-com surge, the peace dividend, spending restraint deals, and favorable demographics — not just tax policy. The script makes the narrow claim: the tax increases did not cause the recession critics predicted. It does not claim the increases caused the boom. Similarly, the balanced budgets of 1998-2001 resulted from both increased revenue (economic growth + higher rates) and spending discipline. (Concord Coalition)

Related Civic Minute segments: Who Can Afford to Run? (CM-53). Related PM scripts: Who Actually Pays, Two Tax Codes, The 50-Year Experiment. Upcoming: The Laffer Curve (the steelman for rate cuts — where the argument works and where it breaks).

Same Dollar, Different Tax

Civic Media — Fri, 21 Aug 2026 17:40:16 +0000

In 1986, Ronald Reagan signed a tax reform built on a simple principle: a dollar is a dollar. Whether you earned it from a paycheck or a stock sale, it was taxed at the same top rate — twenty-eight percent.

That deal didn't last.

Over the next thirty years, Congress cut the rate on investment income — to twenty percent, then fifteen, then back to twenty, where it sits today. Meanwhile, the top rate on wages went the other way — up to thirty-seven percent.

Today, the code taxes the same dollar very differently depending on how you got it. Earn a million dollars in salary, and your top rate is thirty-seven percent — plus payroll taxes. Make a million selling stock, and you pay twenty.

Most Americans earn nearly everything from their labor. The wealthiest earn most of it by managing money they already have — and pay the lowest rates. Reagan's principle — a dollar is a dollar — lasted barely a decade.

Learn More

The 1986 deal. The Tax Reform Act of 1986 — Reagan's signature second-term achievement, passed with large bipartisan majorities — cut the top individual rate from 50% to 28%, collapsed fourteen brackets into two, killed the tax-shelter industry, and repealed the preferential treatment of capital gains. For the first time in modern history, income from work and income from investments were taxed at the same top rate. The Joint Committee on Taxation explained the logic: with rates this low, "it was no longer necessary to provide a lower tax rate for capital gains," and equal treatment would eliminate "the incentive to recharacterize certain income" to dodge taxes. The bill originated in a Democratic proposal (Sen. Bill Bradley and Rep. Dick Gephardt) that Reagan embraced — a genuinely bipartisan reform. (Congress.gov, H.R. 3838; JCT Blue Book; EBSCO; PennyCalc rate history)

How the deal unraveled. The strict rate equality held for tax years 1988-1990. The gap began reopening in 1991, when the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 raised the top ordinary rate to 31% while capping capital gains at 28%. Clinton's 1993 bill widened it further (39.6% on wages, gains still capped at 28%). Then came the affirmative cuts to the investment rate itself:

1997: Taxpayer Relief Act (signed by Clinton) cuts the top capital gains rate from 28% to 20%
2003: Bush's JGTRRA cuts it to 15% — and extends the low rate to qualified dividends
2013: ATRA restores 20% for top earners, where it remains

Meanwhile the top wage rate went 28% → 31% → 39.6% → 35% → 39.6% → 37% (today). Both parties participated in every phase. (CBO analysis of TRA97; Tax Foundation; PennyCalc)

Today's gap, precisely. A high earner's wages face a top rate of 37%, plus Medicare taxes of 2.35% (including the 0.9% additional Medicare tax) — roughly 39%+ marginal. Long-term capital gains face a top statutory rate of 20%, plus the 3.8% Net Investment Income Tax for high earners — 23.8% total. The gap between the top rate on work and the top rate on investment income is roughly 15 percentage points, before considering the payroll taxes that apply only to wages. (IRS)

Who earns what kind of income. Wages and salaries constitute the overwhelming majority of income for most American households. Capital gains and dividends are concentrated at the top: the wealthiest 1% receive the large majority of preferential-rate investment income, and Treasury analysis found that 92% of the benefit of preferential capital gains rates flows to white families, with the top sliver of earners capturing most of it. UC Berkeley researchers found the 400 wealthiest Americans — whose income comes overwhelmingly from capital — pay a lower effective rate (23.8%) than the average American (30.2%). (Treasury OTA WP-122; Tax Policy Center)

The counterargument. Defenders of lower capital gains rates argue: (1) investment income was already taxed once at the corporate level, so the individual rate is a second bite; (2) gains aren't indexed for inflation, so part of every "gain" is illusory; (3) lower rates encourage investment and risk-taking. Critics respond: much investment income never faces corporate tax (real estate, carried interest, pass-throughs); the deferral advantage (no tax until sale) already compensates for inflation; and the 1986-1997 period of equal rates saw robust investment. The 1986 reform itself embodied the judgment — by a Republican president and a bipartisan Congress — that at reasonable rates, equal treatment was both fairer and simpler. (Tax Foundation; JCT)

Related Civic Minute segments: One Direction (Tax History), The Napkin (Tax History). Related PM scripts: Two Tax Codes, Who Actually Pays, The Carried Interest Loophole, Buy Borrow Die.

What It Would Take

Civic Media — Mon, 18 May 2026 23:32:19 +0000

So if multi-member districts with proportional representation are such a good idea, why don’t we have them? Two reasons.

For Congress, there’s a 1967 federal law that requires single-member districts. A bill called the Fair Representation Act has been introduced to repeal it. It would let states elect their representatives proportionally from larger, multi-member districts. That bill is in Congress right now.

For the Wisconsin state legislature, it’s the state constitution. It requires single-member districts. Changing that means a constitutional amendment — passed by two consecutive legislatures, then approved by voters. Governor Evers called a special session on redistricting — and this time, the legislature didn’t gavel it shut. That’s a start — but if all we do is change who draws the lines, we’re still stuck with a system where the lines decide everything.

Tell your legislators: don’t just reform who draws the map. Reform the map itself. Learn more at fairvote dot org.

Learn More

The federal barrier: The Uniform Congressional District Act of 1967 (Public Law 90-196) requires single-member districts for U.S. House elections. This law must be repealed or amended before states can use multi-member districts for congressional races.

The Fair Representation Act (H.R. 4632), reintroduced in July 2025, would repeal the 1967 mandate and replace it with multi-member districts using proportional ranked-choice voting. States with 6+ representatives would use 3-5 member districts. (FairVote)

The state barrier in Wisconsin: The Wisconsin Constitution requires single-member Assembly districts. Changing this requires a constitutional amendment — passed by two consecutive legislatures, then approved by voters in a statewide referendum. That’s a multi-year process.

Independent redistricting vs. proportional representation: Governor Evers called a special session for April 14, 2026, to debate a constitutional amendment banning partisan gerrymandering. Republicans postponed rather than adjourning — leaving negotiations open. But even if successful, changing who draws the maps only addresses one part of the problem. As long as single-member winner-take-all districts remain, geographic sorting alone can produce unfair outcomes. Proportional representation addresses the structural problem, not just the process. (See CM-11, The Special Session)

The Redistricting Reform Act of 2025 (Rep. Lofgren, Sen. Padilla) would prohibit mid-decade redistricting and require independent commissions. This is complementary to the Fair Representation Act — one fixes the process, the other fixes the structure. (Rep. Lofgren press release)

Take action:

FairVote — national organization advancing proportional RCV and the Fair Representation Act
FairVote Wisconsin — state chapter
Wisconsin Fair Maps Coalition — fighting for an independent redistricting commission

Related Civic Minute segments: The End of Gerrymandering (CM-16), Not a New Idea (CM-18), The Special Session (CM-11)

How Multi-Member Districts Work

Civic Media — Mon, 18 May 2026 23:22:58 +0000

Here’s a question. If you live in a district where sixty percent of voters lean one way, what happens to the other forty percent? Under our current system — nothing. They lose every election. Their representative has no reason to listen to them. In district after district, a huge chunk of voters effectively has no voice.

Multi-member districts work differently. Instead of one representative per district, a larger district elects four or five. If sixty percent of voters support one party, they might elect three representatives. The other forty percent elect two. Nearly everyone helps choose someone who represents them.

Now, Congress actually banned multi-member districts back in 1967, and for good reason — Southern states were using them with winner-take-all rules to drown out newly enfranchised Black voters. But multi-member districts with proportional ranked-choice voting do the opposite. They give more representation to communities that the current system shuts out entirely.

Learn More

The problem with single-member districts: In a district where 60% lean one way, the other 40% lose every election and go unrepresented. Under winner-take-all, you either elect someone or you don’t — there’s no proportional outcome. Millions of voters across the country effectively have no voice in their legislature.

How multi-member districts work: Instead of one representative per district, a larger area elects 3-5 representatives using proportional ranked-choice voting. If 60% support one party, they win 3 of 5 seats; the other 40% win 2. Nearly everyone helps elect someone who represents them. The more seats per district, the more proportional the outcome — and the harder it becomes to gerrymander. (Protect Democracy; FairVote)

The 1967 ban and why it happened: Congress passed the Uniform Congressional District Act (Public Law 90-196) in 1967, requiring single-member districts for U.S. House elections. The reason: after the Voting Rights Act of 1965, several Southern states switched to at-large (multi-member, winner-take-all) elections specifically to dilute the voting power of newly enfranchised Black voters. The ban was a civil rights protection against racial vote dilution under winner-take-all rules.

The key distinction — winner-take-all vs. proportional: The 1967 ban addressed multi-member districts with winner-take-all rules, where a 51% majority sweeps all seats. Multi-member districts with proportional ranked-choice voting do the opposite — they give more representation to minority communities, not less. Under proportional rules, a community making up 20% of a five-seat district can elect one representative. Under the current system, that same community elects nobody. (FairVote)

The Fair Representation Act (H.R. 4632) would repeal the 1967 single-member mandate and replace it with multi-member districts using proportional ranked-choice voting. States with 6+ representatives would use 3-5 member districts. States with fewer would use ranked-choice voting in single or dual-member districts. (FairVote)

Where proportional systems are used: Ireland (STV since 1921), Australia (Senate), New Zealand (MMP since 1993), Germany, Scandinavia, and dozens of other democracies. In the U.S., Cambridge, MA uses proportional ranked-choice voting for city council elections.

Compatibility with the Voting Rights Act: Proportional representation expands possibilities for minority representation beyond what is possible under winner-take-all rules. As long as PR leads to minority representation equal to or better than winner-take-all outcomes, it is compatible with existing voting rights law. (Protect Democracy)

Related Civic Minute segments: The Oldest Democracy (CM-13), The Geography Trap (CM-15), The End of Gerrymandering (CM-16)

The Oldest Democracy

Civic Media — Mon, 18 May 2026 23:22:40 +0000

Something feels broken. You vote, but it doesn’t seem to matter. Your representative doesn’t listen to you. Elections feel like they’re decided before they start. And no matter who wins, nothing really changes.

You’re not imagining it.

The United States is one of the oldest democracies on earth. That’s something to be proud of. But it also means we’re running on some of the oldest machinery. Nearly every democracy that came after us looked at our system — single-member districts, winner-take-all, two choices on the ballot, unlimited campaign spending — and decided they could do better. Today the vast majority of the world’s democracies use some form of proportional representation, where the seats match the votes and nearly every voter helps choose someone who represents them.

We were the country that showed the world democracy was possible. We can also be the country that’s willing to make it better.

Learn More

The U.S. is an outlier among democracies. Of the 36 OECD countries, just 4 (about 11%) use exclusively winner-take-all, single-member district systems. Nearly 70% use some form of proportional representation. The U.S., Canada, and the UK are the most notable holdouts. (Sightline Institute)

What is proportional representation? An electoral system that elects multiple representatives per district in proportion to how many people vote for them. If one-third of voters support a party, that party wins roughly one-third of the seats. Under winner-take-all, a candidate winning 51% gets 100% of the representation and the other 49% of voters go unrepresented. (Protect Democracy)

The evidence is strong. Political scientist Arend Lijphart compared 36 democracies over 55 years. His landmark study found proportional systems outperform winner-take-all on nearly every metric: higher voter turnout, greater legislative diversity, more social spending, and higher citizen satisfaction. Countries with PR scored higher on the UN Human Development Index. (Fair Vote Canada)

Higher voter turnout. Countries with proportional systems consistently see higher voter participation. The mechanism is straightforward: when more votes actually count toward representation, more people show up. (Protect Democracy)

The U.S. is also an outlier on campaign finance. Two-thirds of OECD countries have campaign spending limits for parties or candidates. The U.S. is one of the few that doesn’t — the Supreme Court ruled mandatory limits unconstitutional in Buckley v. Valeo (1976). Most democracies also provide free broadcast airtime to candidates and publicly finance campaigns. In the U.S., TV advertising is the single largest campaign expense, and public presidential financing has been abandoned since 2008. France’s Macron spent roughly $47 million on his presidential campaign; Biden spent 25 times that. Both the U.S. and Canada passed campaign finance reform laws in 1974. Canada’s held up. The U.S. Supreme Court struck down spending limits two years later and has been weakening regulations ever since. (American Prospect; Brennan Center; State Department briefing)

Americans are dissatisfied. Pew Research found that 77% of Americans say the political system needs major changes or complete reform — making the U.S. an outlier among high-income nations for its level of dissatisfaction. Separately, 65% of Americans say they always or often feel exhausted when thinking about politics. (Pew Research, Spring 2025 Global Attitudes Survey; Pew Research, September 2023)

Most democracies have reformed their systems. Changing electoral systems is difficult but far from impossible. New Zealand switched from winner-take-all to proportional representation in 1993. Japan reformed its system in 1994. Most democracies have changed their electoral systems at least once. (Protect Democracy)

Further reading:

Related Civic Minute segments: How Multi-Member Districts Work (CM-14), The Geography Trap (CM-15), The Redistricting Arms Race (CM-12)

Half the States Want to Fix Money in Politics

Civic Media — Mon, 18 May 2026 23:20:30 +0000

Did you know that half the states in the country have passed resolutions asking Congress to propose a constitutional amendment on election spending?

Idaho became the twenty-fifth state in March. The list runs from Massachusetts to Montana, Oklahoma to California — red states, blue states, and everything in between. All asking the same thing: let Congress set reasonable rules on how money flows through elections.

That authority was stripped away by a series of Supreme Court decisions — most famously Citizens United in 2010 — which ruled that spending money — even for corporations — is protected speech. Since then, election spending has exploded. Wisconsin’s 2025 Supreme Court race cost ninety million dollars — the most expensive judicial election in American history.

Amending the Constitution is hard. But twenty-five states have already asked Congress to act. When you vote for Congress this fall, it’s worth knowing where your candidates stand.

Learn More

25 states and counting. Idaho became the 25th state in March 2026 to pass a resolution urging Congress to propose a constitutional amendment restoring the authority of Congress and states to set rules on election spending. The Idaho House passed SJM 109 on March 30, following the Senate’s earlier passage — both with overwhelming bipartisan support. (American Promise; Independent Voter News)

The list spans the ideological spectrum: Massachusetts, Montana, Alaska, Nevada, West Virginia, California, Oklahoma, Utah, Idaho, and 16 more. Legislatures in over a dozen additional states are actively considering similar resolutions.

What Citizens United changed: The 2010 Supreme Court decision ruled that corporate spending on elections is protected as free speech under the First Amendment. It overturned restrictions on independent political expenditures by corporations and unions. This followed a series of earlier decisions, starting with Buckley v. Valeo (1976) equating money with speech. Together, these rulings stripped Congress and state legislatures of the authority to regulate much election spending. (Wikipedia)

The "For Our Freedom Amendment" is the specific amendment supported by American Promise, a cross-partisan organization. It would restore the authority of Congress and state legislatures to set reasonable limits on campaign spending. (American Promise; The Fulcrum)

How constitutional amendments work: Requires a two-thirds vote of both chambers of Congress to propose, then ratification by three-fourths of states (38). Unlike ordinary legislation, amendments are not signed by the president, and state ratification doesn’t require gubernatorial approval. Americans have used this process to overturn Supreme Court decisions eight times throughout history. (Article V, U.S. Constitution)

Wisconsin’s $90 million judicial race: The 2025 Supreme Court election between Susan Crawford and Brad Schimel was the most expensive judicial election in American history. (Wisconsin Watch)

The scale of the spending problem: The 2026 midterms are projected to be the most expensive on record. At least $185 million in AI-related spending is already shaping the cycle. Thirty-six percent of all campaign money comes from the top 0.1% of the population.

Wisconsin activity: Wisconsin United To Amend is an active statewide organization. American Promise lobbied for SJR 121 in the 2024 legislative session. The Wisconsin Assembly called for a constitutional convention in May 2021. Multiple municipalities — including Viroqua — have passed local advisory resolutions. (Wisconsin United To Amend; WI lobbying records)

Idaho’s experience: In 2024, more than $17 million was spent on campaign and independent expenditures in Idaho legislative races, with over $9.3 million from outside groups. One Virginia-based PAC spent over $700,000 to oppose certain Idaho candidates. (American Promise)

Related Civic Minute segments: Money in Wisconsin Politics (CM-2)

The Redistricting Battle Nobody Won

Civic Media — Mon, 18 May 2026 23:20:16 +0000

The redistricting war is over — and nobody won. Texas, North Carolina, and Missouri redrew their maps to favor Republicans. California and Virginia redrew theirs to favor Democrats. The net partisan result? Roughly a wash.

But the country now has dozens more safe seats than it had a year ago. More districts where the outcome is guaranteed. Fewer races where candidates have to compete — and less reason for your representative to listen to you.

Both sides fired. Both sides hit. And the casualties were competitive elections.

There are two bills in Congress that could end this for good. The Redistricting Reform Act would ban mid-decade redistricting and require independent commissions. The Fair Representation Act would replace single-member districts with proportional representation — making gerrymandering structurally impossible.

One fixes the process. The other makes the process irrelevant.

Learn More

The 2025-2026 redistricting arms race was the most aggressive mid-decade map redrawing since the 1800s. Six states enacted new congressional maps between the 2024 and 2026 elections. Before 2025, only two states had conducted voluntary mid-decade redistricting since 1970. (Ballotpedia; Congressional Research Service)

Republican-drawn maps (permanent): Texas redrew its maps in summer 2025 at President Trump’s urging, adding five Republican-leaning seats. North Carolina and Missouri followed. These maps have no sunset clause, no trigger condition, and no expiration date. They remain in effect until someone redraws them. (ABC News)

Democratic-drawn maps (temporary): California voters approved Proposition 50 in November 2025, allowing the legislature to temporarily bypass the state’s independent redistricting commission. The maps expire in 2030 and the commission resumes control. Virginia voters approved a constitutional amendment on April 21, 2026, allowing mid-decade redistricting — it also sunsets after October 2030, and the state’s bipartisan redistricting commission resumes. (UC Berkeley/IGS; Ballotpedia; VPAP)

The process asymmetry is striking. In California and Virginia, voters had a direct say — California’s maps required approval via Proposition 50, and Virginia’s required a statewide referendum. Voters could see the proposed maps before voting. In Texas, North Carolina, and Missouri, the legislature acted without putting the question to voters. North Carolina’s state law doesn’t even allow the governor to veto redistricting maps. Texas has no citizen initiative process, meaning voters have no mechanism to override the legislature on redistricting. (Texas Tribune; Ballotpedia)

Where voters have been asked, they’ve pushed back. A poll of Texas voters (Emerson College, August 2025) found 38% opposed mid-decade redistricting while 36% supported it — with 26% unsure. Separately, Brookings cited a poll finding 68% of Texans called a mid-decade redistricting plan that favored one party "a major problem." In Florida, a poll found a majority of voters — including a plurality of Republicans — opposed mid-decade redistricting. In Missouri, opponents collected enough signatures to force a veto referendum onto the November 2026 ballot, giving voters a direct say on whether to keep the legislature’s maps. (Emerson College via KXAN; Brookings; WLRN; PBS News)

The pattern: When redistricting is put to voters, they tend to oppose partisan map manipulation regardless of which party benefits. The states where maps were redrawn without voter input are the ones where polling shows the most public discomfort with the process.

The net partisan result is roughly a wash. Both sides gained and lost seats. But the real damage is structural: the country now has dozens more safe, noncompetitive seats. More districts where the outcome is predetermined. Fewer races where candidates have to earn broad support — and less accountability for the representatives who win them. Brookings noted that high-profile Democratic challengers and public opposition could cause the Republican strategy to backfire in 2026. (Brookings)

The Redistricting Reform Act (H.R. 5449 / S. 2885), led by Rep. Zoe Lofgren and Sen. Alex Padilla, would ban mid-decade redistricting nationwide and require every state to establish independent redistricting commissions. It has 56 House cosponsors and 3 Senate cosponsors (Padilla, Warnock, King). All Democrats and one Independent — no Republican support so far. Common Cause and former Attorney General Eric Holder have endorsed it. (Rep. Lofgren press release; Sen. Padilla press release; Census Project)

The Fair Representation Act (H.R. 4632) goes further. It would repeal the 1967 Uniform Congressional District Act and replace single-member districts with multi-member districts using proportional ranked-choice voting. Under this system, gerrymandering becomes structurally impossible — because no matter how you draw a multi-member district, the seats reflect the votes. (FairVote)

Further reading:

Ballotpedia, "Redistricting Ahead of the 2026 Elections" — comprehensive tracker of all state activity
The Fulcrum, "Gerrymandering Tests the Boundaries of Fair Representation in 2026"
Center for American Progress, "Trump Ordered Texas to Gerrymander"
MultiState, "State Redistricting Legal Challenges Intensify"
Wikipedia, "2025-2026 United States Redistricting"

General gerrymandering resources: See CM-5 for links to PlanScore, Princeton Gerrymandering Project, MIT Election Data + Science Lab, Brennan Center, and Dave’s Redistricting App.

Related Civic Minute segments: The Redistricting Arms Race (CM-12), The End of Gerrymandering (CM-16), What It Would Take (CM-17), Competition (CM-8)

National Popular Vote

Civic Media — Mon, 18 May 2026 22:03:17 +0000

In the last presidential election, ninety-four percent of all campaign events happened in just seven states. That means the vast majority of Americans were completely ignored. Whether you live in Texas, California, or forty-one other states — candidates had no reason to talk to you, listen to you, or fight for your vote.

Now, Wisconsin happens to be one of those seven states, so we get plenty of attention. But is that fair? We didn’t earn it. And it means we’re buried in political ads every four years while most of the country is shut out entirely.

The National Popular Vote would make every vote equal — no more swing states, no more spectator states. Eighteen states have already signed on. Wisconsin could be next.

Learn More

What is the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact? An agreement among states to award all their electoral votes to whichever presidential ticket wins the national popular vote. It doesn’t abolish the Electoral College — it works within it, using each state’s constitutional authority to decide how to award its electors. The compact only takes effect when member states collectively hold 270 electoral votes. (National Popular Vote; Britannica)

Current status (April 2026): 18 states plus the District of Columbia have signed on, totaling 222 electoral votes — 82% of the 270 needed. Virginia became the newest member on April 14, 2026. The compact needs just 48 more electoral votes to take effect. (NPR; National Popular Vote)

Member states: California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, plus DC — including 6 small jurisdictions, 10 medium-sized states, and 3 large states. (National Popular Vote)

Why "swing states" dominate: Under the current winner-take-all system, presidential candidates concentrate almost all campaign activity in a handful of competitive states. In 2024, 94% of campaign events occurred in just seven states. Whether you live in deep-red Texas or deep-blue California, candidates have little reason to compete for your vote. (National Popular Vote)

The constitutional basis: Article II of the U.S. Constitution gives each state exclusive authority to decide how to award its electoral votes. States already changed from legislative appointment to popular vote in the 1800s. The compact uses this same authority — no constitutional amendment is required. (Ballotpedia)

Legal questions remain. Some legal scholars believe the compact may require congressional approval under the Constitution’s Compact Clause. The compact’s sponsors argue congressional approval is not needed because it doesn’t infringe on federal power. This question would likely be litigated if the compact reaches 270 votes. (Wikipedia)

Wisconsin legislation: Bills have been introduced in Wisconsin (HB 156 in 2023). NPVIC legislation has been introduced in all 50 state legislatures at some point. (Ballotpedia)

Related Civic Minute segments: Final Five Voting (CM-3)

The People Already Agree

Civic Media — Mon, 18 May 2026 22:03:11 +0000

Here’s something that might surprise you. Across Wisconsin, fifty-six counties and dozens of municipalities have passed resolutions calling for nonpartisan redistricting. Thirty-two counties have put it to a countywide vote — and voters approved it by overwhelming margins every single time.

This isn’t a close call. This isn’t a partisan issue — at least not for the voters. Across the political spectrum, the people of Wisconsin have said: take the politics out of drawing our maps.

And yet, for over a decade, the legislature did nothing. The resolutions sat in a drawer. The people in power chose not to listen.

The one reform that would make them accountable is the one reform they refused to pass — because they don’t have to.

But right now, there’s a chance to break that cycle. Governor Evers called a special session on redistricting reform — and this time, the legislature didn’t gavel it shut. Fifty-six counties have already said what they want. Call your representative and remind them.

Learn More

Overwhelming bipartisan support: Since 2013, 56 of Wisconsin’s 72 counties have passed board resolutions calling for nonpartisan redistricting. Five additional municipalities in 3 other counties have done the same. Thirty-two counties and 21 municipalities have put the question to a countywide vote — and voters approved it by overwhelming margins every single time, in communities across the political spectrum. (Fair Maps Coalition History)

21 reform bills — zero floor votes. From 2009 to 2022, twenty-one bills or resolutions were introduced in the Wisconsin Legislature to create a nonpartisan redistricting process. None received an up-or-down vote on the floor of either chamber. (Fair Maps Coalition: Bills & Resolutions 2009-2022)

The Wisconsin Fair Maps Coalition is a statewide coalition of dozens of organizations and thousands of volunteers. Member organizations include Common Cause, Law Forward, League of Women Voters, RepresentUs Wisconsin, All Voting is Local, and others. The coalition formed in 2017 after the federal court ruled Wisconsin’s maps unconstitutional in Gill v. Whitford. (fairmapswi.com; About the Coalition)

What they’re proposing: An independent, nonpartisan commission that draws district lines for state and federal office, then presents the maps to the legislature for an up-or-down vote — no amendments. This is the model used in several other states. (Wisconsin Farmers Union / Fair Maps)

The 2024 victory — and the unfinished work. Governor Evers signed new state legislative maps in February 2024 after the Supreme Court struck down the old ones. The 2024 elections showed immediate results: 14 seats flipped and both parties had to compete. But without a permanent change to the redistricting process, whoever controls the legislature and governor’s office after 2030 will draw the next set of maps. The coalition’s goal is to have an independent commission in place before then. (fairmapswi.com)

The coalition held public meetings across Wisconsin in summer 2025 — in North Shore, Dodgeville, Green Bay, Wausau, Waukesha, and Madison — to build support for independent redistricting commission legislation. (InfluenceWatch)

The April 2026 special session — a potential breakthrough. Governor Evers called the legislature into special session on April 14, 2026 to consider a constitutional amendment banning partisan gerrymandering. In a significant departure from past practice, Republicans did not immediately gavel the session shut — unlike every previous Evers special session. GOP leadership indicated willingness to negotiate, and conversations between Evers and Republican legislators continued after April 14. The session remains technically open. Whether this leads to action before the legislature adjourns remains to be seen, but the fact that the session stayed open signals a potential shift. (WPR; Wisconsin Examiner; Wisconsin Independent; Wikipedia)

Get involved: Contact the Fair Maps Coalition at fairmapswi.com or Carlene at carlene@fairmapswi.com / 608-513-7655. (Wisconsin Democracy Campaign redistricting resources)

General gerrymandering resources: See CM-5 for links to PlanScore, Princeton Gerrymandering Project, MIT Election Data + Science Lab, Brennan Center, and Dave’s Redistricting App.

Related Civic Minute segments: What Gerrymandering Is (CM-7), Competition (CM-8), The Next Ten Years Are on the Ballot (CM-20)

Competition

Civic Media — Mon, 18 May 2026 22:02:53 +0000

In 2022, under Wisconsin’s old gerrymandered maps, only four out of ninety-nine state Assembly races were decided by fewer than five points. Four. The other ninety-five? The outcome was basically known before the first vote was cast.

Congress is even worse. Since those maps were drawn, the median margin of victory across Wisconsin’s eight congressional districts has been close to thirty points. In a state that’s essentially fifty-fifty.

When your representative knows they can’t lose, they don’t have to listen to you. They don’t have to compromise. They don’t even have to show up. They answer to whoever picks their voters — not to the voters themselves.

Wisconsin got new state legislative maps in 2024, and the difference was dramatic — real races, real choices, and fourteen seats changed hands. The congressional maps? Still the same. There’s a lawsuit in the courts right now challenging those maps, but no new lines before this November.

Learn More

Only 4 of 99 Assembly races were competitive in 2022. Under the old gerrymandered maps, just four races were decided by fewer than 5 percentage points. The other 95 had outcomes that were effectively predetermined. (Wisconsin Watch / WPR)

Congressional races are even less competitive. Since the maps were drawn in 2011, the median margin of victory across Wisconsin’s eight congressional districts has been close to 30 percentage points. Only 1 of 40 congressional races since 2011 was decided by fewer than 10 points. In a state where statewide elections are routinely decided by 1-3 points. (AP via PBS Wisconsin; Law Forward)

New maps produced real competition in 2024. Under the new state legislative maps, 82 of 99 Assembly districts had candidates from both parties — the highest since 2010. Fourteen seats changed hands (10 Assembly, 4 Senate). The Assembly went from 64R-34D to 54R-45D. (Marquette Law Faculty Blog)

Why lack of competition matters: When representatives can’t lose, they answer to party leadership and primary voters rather than to the broader public. There’s no incentive to compromise, engage with constituents, or show up at town halls. Safe seats are where accountability dies.

Congressional maps unchanged for 2026. The Bothfield v. WEC lawsuit was dismissed March 31, 2026. A second lawsuit goes to trial in 2027. No new congressional maps before November 2026. (WPR; Wisconsin Examiner)

General gerrymandering resources: See CM-5 for links to PlanScore, Princeton Gerrymandering Project, MIT Election Data + Science Lab, Brennan Center, and Dave’s Redistricting App.

Related Civic Minute segments: Packing and Cracking (CM-5), How Safe Seats Make Politics Worse (CM-10), The People Already Agree (CM-9)

Rockets and Feathers

Civic Media — Mon, 18 May 2026 22:02:29 +0000

You may have noticed something about gas prices. When Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, prices shot up almost overnight. But when oil markets settled back down, it took weeks — sometimes months — for prices at the pump to follow. Economists have a name for this. They call it "rockets and feathers."

Here’s why. When crude oil prices surge, gas stations raise prices immediately. They have to — they need today’s revenue to pay for tomorrow’s delivery at the higher price. That part is rational.

But when crude prices fall, there’s no urgency to lower the pump price. The gas in the tank was bought at the old, higher price, and every day the price stays up, the margin is better. Competition eventually pushes prices down — but slowly, station by station, penny by penny.

So spikes are measured in days. Drops are measured in weeks. And in places with fewer gas stations and less competition — like rural Wisconsin — the feather falls even slower.

Learn More

"Rockets and feathers" is the term economists use for the well-documented pattern where gas prices rise faster than they fall. The concept was first formally described by economist Robert Bacon in 1991 and has been extensively validated in research since. (Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis has published reviews of retail gasoline pricing asymmetry.)

The 2022 price spike: When Russia invaded Ukraine, the national average gas price hit $5.02/gallon in June 2022 — an all-time record. Crude oil peaked near $120/barrel (Brent) in March 2022 and fell below $80 by late summer. But retail gas prices took months to follow crude back down. (EIA gasoline price data)

Why prices go up faster than they come down: Gas stations price based on "replacement cost" — the price of their next delivery, not the gas currently in their tanks. When crude spikes, they raise prices immediately to cover tomorrow’s more expensive shipment. When crude drops, there’s no urgency — the gas already in the ground was bought at the higher price, and every day the pump price stays up, the station’s margin improves. Competition eventually pushes prices down, but slowly.

Refinery margins also play a role. During price declines, wholesale gasoline tends to drop more slowly than crude oil, which means refiners capture a wider "crack spread" — the difference between crude oil cost and wholesale gasoline price. (EIA crack spread data)

Rural areas feel it more: The asymmetry is more pronounced in communities with fewer competing gas stations. In rural Wisconsin, where many communities have only 2-3 stations, there’s less competitive pressure to lower prices quickly.

Current context: Gas averaged about $3.10/gallon nationally in 2025 and surged sharply in early 2026 due to the Iran conflict and closure of the Strait of Hormuz. The national average crossed $4/gallon on April 2, 2026 — the first time since August 2022 — hitting $4.08 per AAA. As of April 21, 2026, the national average is $4.02. (AAA; EIA Short-Term Energy Outlook)

It’s happening right now. The Wall Street Journal reported on April 20, 2026, that despite an Iran ceasefire and oil prices retreating, gas prices at the pump continued to rise — a textbook rockets-and-feathers scenario. Energy Secretary Chris Wright said on CNN’s State of the Union (April 19, 2026) that prices have "likely peaked" but gas may not return below $3/gallon until 2027. President Trump disagreed, saying Wright was "totally wrong" and that prices would drop "as soon as this ends." (CNN; Axios; Fortune)

Related Civic Minute segments: What’s in a Gallon of Gas (CM-22), Oil Is a Global Commodity (CM-23)

Where Does the Money Go?

Civic Media — Tue, 05 May 2026 22:50:58 +0000

When gas prices spike, you pay more. But where does that extra money actually go?

Oil was sixty-six dollars a barrel in February — before the Iran war. By mid-April, it was over a hundred. The price difference flows to whoever owns the oil.

In the U.S., it goes mostly to oil company shareholders — through dividends, stock buybacks, and reinvestment in drilling. In Saudi Arabia, the government owns the oil, so it funds government spending. In Russia, it flows to state-controlled companies whose leaders are closely tied to Putin — helping finance the war in Ukraine.

And then there's Norway. Their oil revenue goes into a two-trillion-dollar sovereign wealth fund that belongs to every citizen. Same oil. Same price spike. Very different outcome.

The price at your pump is set by a global market you can't control. But how a country uses its oil wealth is a choice. Some countries invest in their people. Some enrich their shareholders. And some fund wars.

Learn More

When oil prices spike, the extra money you pay at the pump doesn't disappear — it flows to the companies and governments that control the oil. Where it ends up depends entirely on who owns the resource and what rules govern how the profits are used.

The current price spike: U.S. crude oil was $66/barrel in late February 2026, before the U.S. and Israel attacked Iran. By April 13, it had risen to $101/barrel — a 53% increase in less than two months. (EIA crude oil price data)

U.S. oil companies operating in the Permian Basin — the country's largest oil field — effectively receive a windfall when global prices rise. Prices increase faster than costs, at least in the short run. The money goes primarily to shareholders through dividends, stock buybacks, debt reduction, and reinvestment in drilling. (Houston Public Media)

Saudi Arabia owns and controls nearly all of its oil production through Saudi Aramco. High prices benefit the government's finances directly, and oil revenue has historically funded public spending, infrastructure, and sovereign investment. (Reuters)

Russia's oil industry is dominated by government-controlled companies whose leaders maintain close ties to President Putin. Western nations have imposed price cap sanctions — Western shipping, insurance, and financing can only be used for Russian crude priced below $60/barrel. Despite these restrictions, high global prices still benefit Russia's military-industrial complex. (Reuters Investigates)

Norway takes a fundamentally different approach. Oil revenues flow into the Government Pension Fund Global — the world's largest sovereign wealth fund, valued at over $2 trillion. Laws govern how much can be withdrawn and for what purposes, preserving wealth for future generations while supporting current public spending. Alaska has a similar but smaller model through the Permanent Fund, which pays an annual dividend to every resident. (Norway's Government Pension Fund)

The U.K. North Sea operates a hybrid model — private shareholders are the primary beneficiaries, but an additional tax on oil and gas company profits ensures the government collects a significant share for public purposes.

What this means for consumers: In the short run, there's not much individual consumers can do about price spikes. But in the long run, reducing dependence on oil — through electric vehicles, public transit, and renewable energy — means less exposure to a global commodity market where your money flows to places you may not want it to go.

This segment was inspired by: "When oil prices spike, where does the money go?" by Matthew E. Oliver and Tibor Besedeš, Georgia Institute of Technology. Published in The Conversation, April 20, 2026.

Related Civic Minute segments: Oil Is a Global Commodity (CM-23), Who's Subsidizing Whom? (CM-33), What Energy Independence Actually Means (CM-38)

Gas Taxes: Where Does the Money Go?

Civic Media — Tue, 05 May 2026 22:40:54 +0000

Every gallon of gas you buy in Wisconsin includes about fifty-one cents in taxes — roughly thirty-three cents to the state, eighteen to the federal government. People grumble about it. But here’s what that money does: it builds and maintains the roads you’re driving on.

Wisconsin’s gas tax used to be indexed to inflation — but lawmakers eliminated that in 2006. It’s been frozen at thirty-three cents for twenty years. The state has lost an estimated four billion dollars in transportation revenue because of that decision. The federal gas tax is even worse — eighteen point four cents since 1993. Over thirty years, no adjustment, and nearly half its purchasing power gone.

That’s one reason America’s roads and bridges keep falling behind. The Highway Trust Fund has been running short for years, and Congress keeps patching it with general tax revenue rather than raising the gas tax — because nobody wants to be the politician who raised gas prices.

Meanwhile, the oil and gas industry has received federal tax breaks and subsidies for over a century. The roads wear out. The subsidies don’t.

Learn More

Wisconsin’s gas tax is 32.9¢/gallon (state excise) plus a 2¢ petroleum inspection fee. The tax was once indexed to CPI, but state lawmakers eliminated the indexing provision in 2006. The rate has been frozen ever since — unchanged for 20 years. The Wisconsin Transportation Builders Association estimates the state has lost approximately $4 billion in transportation revenue over the past two decades as a result. The gas tax is the single largest source of revenue for WisDOT to fix, maintain, and improve Wisconsin’s roads. Gas tax revenue contributed about $1.07 billion to the state transportation fund in 2021-22, roughly 45% of total fund revenue. Wisconsin ranks 12th highest among states. (WI Legislative Fiscal Bureau, Informational Paper 40)

The federal gas tax — 18.4¢/gallon — has not changed since October 1, 1993. It is not indexed to inflation. In today’s dollars, it has lost roughly 45% of its purchasing power. (EIA FAQ)

Total Wisconsin gas tax: About 51.3¢/gallon combined. For comparison: California charges 70.9¢, Illinois 66.4¢, and Alaska just 9¢. The national average is about 33.5¢ as of January 2026. (Tax Foundation; EIA state tax data)

The Highway Trust Fund keeps running short. Congress has transferred over $275 billion in general fund revenue since 2008 to keep the HTF solvent — essentially using income taxes to make up for a gas tax that hasn’t been raised in over 30 years. (Congressional Budget Office)

Fossil fuel industry subsidies have existed for over a century. The federal government has provided direct tax expenditures to oil, gas, and coal companies since at least 1918. See CM-33 (Who’s Subsidizing Whom?) for detailed subsidy data.

Related Civic Minute segments: What’s in a Gallon of Gas (CM-22), Who’s Subsidizing Whom? (CM-33)

What's in a Gallon of Gas

Civic Media — Tue, 28 Apr 2026 19:51:07 +0000

When gas prices go up, we want someone to blame. The president. The oil companies. The government. But the price of a gallon of gas isn’t one thing — it’s four.

About half the price is crude oil — set on a global market that no president, no company, and no country fully controls. Another seventeen percent or so is the cost of refining that oil into gasoline. Another seventeen percent is distribution and marketing — getting it from the refinery to the pump, and the gas station’s slim margin. And the rest is taxes.

In Wisconsin, you pay about fifty-one cents a gallon in combined state and federal taxes. That money builds and maintains roads. Neither has been raised in years — the state’s been frozen since 2006, the federal since 1993.

Next time gas prices move, ask yourself: which of those four pieces actually changed? The answer is almost always the first one — crude oil. And that’s set on the other side of the world.

Learn More

What makes up the price of a gallon of gas? According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, there are four main components: crude oil (~50%), refining (~17%), distribution and marketing (~17%), and taxes (~16%). (EIA: Factors Affecting Gasoline Prices)

Crude oil is the biggest piece — and the most volatile. It’s set on a global market. When prices move, it’s almost always crude driving the change. The other three components are relatively stable. The national average crossed $4/gallon in early April 2026 for the first time since August 2022, driven by the Iran conflict and Strait of Hormuz closure. (AAA; EIA Short-Term Energy Outlook)

Wisconsin gas taxes total about 51 cents per gallon: 32.9¢ state excise tax, plus a 2¢ petroleum inspection fee, plus the 18.4¢ federal tax. The state tax was once indexed to CPI, but lawmakers eliminated the indexing provision in 2006. The rate has been frozen for 20 years. The Wisconsin Transportation Builders Association estimates the state has lost approximately $4 billion in transportation revenue as a result. Wisconsin ranks 12th highest nationally for state gas taxes. That revenue funds road construction and maintenance — the state transportation fund received about $1.07 billion from fuel taxes in 2021-22, roughly 45% of the fund’s total. (WI Legislative Fiscal Bureau, Informational Paper 40)

The federal gas tax — 18.4¢/gallon — hasn’t been raised since October 1, 1993. That’s over 30 years with no adjustment for inflation. Wisconsin’s state tax is also frozen — indexing to CPI was eliminated in 2006. Both taxes have lost significant purchasing power. (EIA FAQ: Federal and State Motor Fuels Taxes)

For comparison: California’s combined state gas taxes are about 70.9¢/gallon, Illinois charges 66.4¢, and Alaska has the lowest at just 9¢. (EIA state gas tax data, January 2026; Tax Foundation)

Gas station margins are surprisingly thin — typically just a few cents per gallon on fuel sales. Most gas stations make the majority of their money from convenience store sales, not from the gasoline itself.

Related Civic Minute segments: Rockets and Feathers (CM-21), Oil Is a Global Commodity (CM-23), Gas Taxes: Where Does the Money Go? (CM-32)

Does Drilling More Lower Gas Prices?

Civic Media — Tue, 28 Apr 2026 19:50:46 +0000

The United States already produces more oil than any country on Earth — nearly fourteen million barrels a day. That’s a record. And gas still shot past four dollars this spring.

Why didn’t all that production protect us? Because American oil enters a global market of over a hundred million barrels a day. Our record output is about thirteen percent of the total. Even a big increase in American drilling is a small change in world supply.

And here’s the catch: OPEC — a consortium of thirteen oil-exporting countries — exists specifically to manage global oil prices. If the U.S. pumps more, OPEC can cut their own production to keep prices where they want them. They’ve been doing this for over sixty years. It’s not a conspiracy — it’s their stated purpose.

Drilling more isn’t nothing. But it’s not the lever most people think it is.

Learn More

U.S. oil production is at an all-time record — roughly 13.8 million barrels per day as of late 2025, the highest of any country in history. Yet gas prices still spiked past $4 this spring after the Iran conflict disrupted global supply. (EIA)

U.S. production is about 13% of global supply. The world consumes roughly 106 million barrels per day. Even a significant increase in American drilling represents a small change in total world supply. (Bipartisan Policy Center)

OPEC can offset U.S. production increases. The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) is a consortium of 13 oil-exporting nations whose stated mission is to "coordinate and unify the petroleum policies of its Member Countries." OPEC+ (which includes allies like Russia) routinely adjusts output targets to manage global prices. If U.S. production rises, OPEC can cut their own to keep prices stable. (OPEC.org)

New drilling doesn’t help in a crisis. Drilling, fracking, and completing a new well takes months. By the time new supply reaches the market, the crisis that caused the price spike is often over. Resources for the Future noted that "there is no such thing as energy independence, particularly when it comes to oil" — even at record production, the U.S. can’t act as a "swing producer" fast enough to respond to sudden disruptions. (Resources for the Future)

Current gas prices: Averaged about $3.10/gallon in 2025. Prices surged past $4/gallon in early April 2026 due to Iran/Strait of Hormuz disruptions — the highest since August 2022. As of April 21, 2026, the national average is $4.02. (AAA; EIA Short-Term Energy Outlook)

Related Civic Minute segments: Oil Is a Global Commodity (CM-23), We Drill It, Export It, Import What We Need (CM-28), What Energy Independence Actually Means (CM-38)

Oil Is a Global Commodity

Civic Media — Tue, 28 Apr 2026 19:50:34 +0000

In January, the United States invaded Venezuela — a country with the largest oil reserves on Earth. Gas prices that week? Two dollars and eighty-one cents. They barely moved. Because despite all those reserves, Venezuela produces less than one percent of the world’s oil. Reserves don’t set prices. Production does.

Then the U.S. and Israel struck Iran. Iran choked off the Strait of Hormuz — and roughly a fifth of the world’s oil supply stopped flowing. Crude prices jumped forty-five percent. Gas shot past four dollars.

Here’s the thing: eighty percent of that oil was headed for Asia, not the United States. We get almost none of our oil from the Persian Gulf. But it didn’t matter. Oil is priced on a world market. When supply drops anywhere, prices rise everywhere — including at your gas station in Wisconsin.

That’s what "global commodity" means. And no amount of drilling changes it.

Learn More

Why Venezuela didn’t move gas prices: Venezuela has the largest proven oil reserves on Earth — roughly 17% of the global total. But production has collapsed from 3.5 million barrels per day in the late 1990s to under 1 million bpd by 2025, due to years of mismanagement and sanctions. When the U.S. intervened in January 2026, gas averaged $2.81/gallon nationally. Markets barely reacted because Venezuela’s actual production — not its reserves — is what matters, and it’s less than 1% of global supply. (Bipartisan Policy Center; The Conversation)

Why Iran moved gas prices dramatically: U.S. and Israeli strikes began February 28, 2026. Iran blocked the Strait of Hormuz, disrupting roughly 20 million barrels per day — about 20% of global oil supply. Crude jumped approximately 45% to $95-100/barrel. The national gas price forecast for 2026 rose to $3.70/gallon (up from $3.10 in 2025). (EIA Short-Term Energy Outlook, April 2026; Resources for the Future)

We barely import from the Persian Gulf — but it still affects us. The U.S. imports only about 490,000 barrels per day from Persian Gulf countries — roughly 8% of total imports. About 80% of oil flowing through the Strait of Hormuz is headed to Asia, not the U.S. But oil is priced on a single global market. As energy economist Mark Finley of Rice University’s Baker Institute put it: "If something goes wrong anywhere, the price goes up everywhere." (FactCheck.org)

The U.S. is the world’s largest oil producer at roughly 13.8 million barrels per day. Yet we’re still a net importer of crude — importing about 6.2 million bpd and exporting about 4 million bpd. Record production didn’t prevent the price spike. (Poynter/PolitiFact)

Related Civic Minute segments: What’s in a Gallon of Gas (CM-22), Does Drilling More Lower Gas Prices? (CM-24), What Energy Independence Actually Means (CM-38)

When Gas Prices Spike, Your Grid Gets Dirtier

Civic Media — Wed, 22 Apr 2026 01:32:15 +0000

When gas prices spike, most people notice at the pump. What they don’t notice is what happens to the electricity coming out of their wall.

Power plants are dispatched in order of cost — cheapest first. When natural gas is cheap, gas plants run. When gas prices rise, coal becomes the cheaper option, and utilities switch. In 2025, coal consumption in the power sector jumped nine percent — the first increase in years — driven by higher gas prices and rising demand from data centers.

Wisconsin still gets about thirty percent of its electricity from coal — all of it imported, mostly by rail from Wyoming. The state has no coal of its own. So when gas prices spike, Wisconsin doesn’t just pay more for energy. It burns more of someone else’s coal to make it.

Higher prices and dirtier power at the same time. That’s the part of fossil fuel dependence most people never see.

Learn More

How "merit order" dispatch works: Power plants are dispatched in order of their variable cost — cheapest first. When natural gas prices are low, gas plants are cheaper to run than coal, so they get dispatched first. When gas prices spike, coal becomes the cheaper option, and utilities switch. This is called "gas-to-coal switching." (EIA)

Coal consumption jumped in 2025. EIA confirmed coal consumption in the electric power sector increased 9% in 2025 — the first increase in years. An 11% jump in coal-fired electricity generation was driven by higher gas costs and rising electricity demand, particularly from data centers. (Heatmap News; EIA STEO)

In MISO — Wisconsin’s grid — coal regularly exceeds gas generation in winter months. As recently as 2021-22, coal exceeded gas in every month of the year. More recently it’s been limited to winter, but the pattern persists whenever gas prices rise. (EIA)

Winter Storm Fern showed the extreme case. In January 2026, Henry Hub natural gas hit an all-time high of $30.57/MMBtu. Coal plants ramped up hard — 43 million short tons consumed in one month, 10% more than forecast. Coal consumption increased across all four census regions, led by gains in the South and Midwest. (Natural Gas Intelligence)

Wisconsin imports all its coal. The state has zero coal mines. Roughly 30-32% of Wisconsin’s electricity comes from coal (down from ~60% a decade ago). All of it is imported, primarily from Wyoming’s Powder River Basin by rail. (EIA Wisconsin State Energy Profile)

LNG exports contribute to the problem. In March-April 2025, LNG exports equaled about half of all natural gas used for electricity generation in the U.S. Exporting gas raises domestic prices, which triggers more coal dispatch — a feedback loop. U.S. LNG exports were up 25% in 2025 with another 10% increase expected in 2026. (Utility Dive/IEEFA)

Coal plants are being kept open by government orders. The Trump administration is using emergency orders (Section 202c) to prevent coal plant retirements. At least one Michigan plant reported a net loss of $125 million for 2025 under these orders. If extended to all plants scheduled to retire by 2028, the cost to ratepayers could reach $3-6 billion per year. (EDF/Earthjustice)

The emissions impact: Total U.S. CO2 emissions have essentially flattened at roughly 4.8 billion metric tons, as coal’s resurgence offsets gains from renewable energy growth. (Heatmap News)

Related Civic Minute segments: Rockets and Feathers (CM-21), Oil Is a Global Commodity (CM-23), Where Does Your Electricity Come From? (CM-34), What Energy Independence Actually Means (CM-38)

Who Decides Your Electric Bill?

Civic Media — Wed, 22 Apr 2026 01:32:08 +0000

Do you know who sets your electric rate? It’s not your utility. It’s the Public Service Commission — three people, appointed by the governor, who decide what every utility in Wisconsin can charge you. They’re the most powerful government body most people have never heard of.

Here’s how it works. Your utility is a regulated monopoly. You can’t buy electricity from anyone else. In exchange, they can’t raise prices without the PSC’s approval. When they want a rate increase, they file a case. The PSC reviews it, holds public hearings, and decides.

Right now, that process matters more than ever. Wisconsin utilities have filed for billions of dollars in new rate increases — driven partly by data centers that could expand electricity demand by forty percent in parts of the state. The PSC is deciding who pays for that: the tech companies, or you.

The Citizens Utility Board — cubwi.org — tracks every rate case and advocates for residential customers. If your electric bill is going up, they’re worth knowing about.

Learn More

The Public Service Commission (PSC) is a three-member body appointed by the governor and confirmed by the state Senate. They regulate all investor-owned utilities in Wisconsin. When a utility wants to raise rates, it files an application, and the PSC reviews it through a formal process including staff analysis, testimony, and public hearings before the commissioners decide. (PSC: How Rates Are Changed)

Rates have been rising significantly. The PSC approved $2.2 billion in rate increases (out of $3.1 billion requested) from 2021-2026. Wisconsin now has the second-highest residential electricity rates and third-highest industrial rates in the Midwest. (WisPolitics)

The latest filing: We Energies and Wisconsin Public Service filed for $500 million in new increases on April 2, 2026, for 2027-2028. We Energies customers could see roughly $13/month increases in 2027 and $9 in 2028. (WBAY)

Data centers are a major driver. Planned facilities in Mount Pleasant (Microsoft) and Port Washington could expand electricity demand by 40% in parts of southeastern Wisconsin between 2026-2030. The Port Washington facility alone would need 1.3 GW — enough to power roughly 800,000 homes. We Energies has filed $5.5 billion in new projects to support data center demand. The PSC held public hearings on February 10, 2026 about a proposed rate structure for very large customers. Microsoft said it would "pay its own way." Consumer advocates are pushing for data centers to cover 100% of infrastructure costs. (Wisconsin Watch; Racine County Eye)

What drives rate increases: Roughly half of recent electric rate hikes are linked to new generation projects (solar, battery storage, natural gas plants). Other drivers include vegetation management, inflation, transmission costs, and supply chain cost overruns. (WPR; CUB)

How utilities make money: Fuel costs are a pass-through — utilities don’t profit from them. But they earn authorized returns on capital investments (new plants, transmission lines). This creates an incentive to build new infrastructure. The current authorized return on equity is roughly 9.8-10%. CUB has pushed to reduce it to 9.3%. (Alliant Energy)

Citizens Utility Board of Wisconsin (CUB): An independent nonprofit that advocates for residential and small business utility customers. CUB tracks every rate case, provides testimony, and publishes analysis. Visit cubwi.org.

You can participate. Customers can comment on the PSC’s website, attend public hearings on rate cases, or join CUB. (PSC Public Participation)

Related Civic Minute segments: Where Does Your Electricity Come From? (CM-34), Point Beach, Kewaunee, and the Nuclear Question (CM-40)

Point Beach, Kewaunee, and the Nuclear Question

Civic Media — Wed, 22 Apr 2026 01:31:59 +0000

Fifteen percent of Wisconsin’s electricity comes from one place: the Point Beach nuclear plant near Two Rivers. It runs day and night, produces zero carbon, and because it was paid off decades ago, it’s some of the cheapest power on the grid.

Wisconsin used to have a second nuclear plant — Kewaunee, up the coast. It shut down in 2013, not because it was unsafe, but because cheap natural gas undercut it. The local economy lost over six hundred jobs and never fully recovered.

Now there’s a plan to build a new reactor on that same site, driven by data center demand. But building new nuclear is expensive, and it wouldn’t come online until the late 2030s.

Kewaunee closed because of a short-term bet on cheap gas that turned out to be wrong. Now gas prices are volatile, data centers want low-carbon power, and the demand for reliable electricity has never been higher. The lesson isn’t about any one technology — it’s about what happens when short-term economics drive long-term energy decisions.

Learn More

Point Beach is Wisconsin’s only operating nuclear plant — two reactors near Two Rivers on Lake Michigan, running since the early 1970s. It provides about 15% of the state’s electricity with a capacity factor above 90% and zero carbon emissions during operation. Because construction was paid off decades ago, its marginal operating cost is roughly $25-35/MWh — among the cheapest power on the grid. (EIA Wisconsin State Energy Profile; World Nuclear Association)

Why Kewaunee closed: The 556 MW plant shut down May 7, 2013 after 39 years. Owner Dominion Resources said the decision was "based purely on economics." The shale gas revolution had flooded the market with cheap natural gas, driving wholesale electricity prices below Kewaunee’s operating costs. Power purchase agreements expired and Wisconsin utilities refused to renew them. As a small, single-unit plant, Kewaunee had high fixed costs (~$40/MWh vs. industry average under $20/MWh) that couldn’t be spread across multiple reactors the way Point Beach’s costs can. (Power Engineering; CSIS)

Economic devastation: The closure eliminated 600+ jobs, $70 million+ in annual wages, and an estimated $630 million in total economic impact to the three-county area. Town of Carlton chairman David Hardtke: "That plant never should have been shut down." (ANS Nuclear Newswire; WisPolitics)

The new build plan: EnergySolutions filed a Notice of Intent with the NRC on January 15, 2026, to apply for major licensing by June 2028, in partnership with WEC Energy Group. This is not a restart — the old reactor is being decommissioned (3-5 years remaining). It would be an entirely new facility, possibly using advanced designs like molten salt reactors or small modular reactors. Construction could begin in the early 2030s, with the plant coming online by the late 2030s. Data center demand is the explicit driver, with potential for co-located data centers on site. (Daily Reporter; WPR)

New nuclear is expensive. Lazard puts new nuclear LCOE at $141-220/MWh — compared to $38-92/MWh for solar. Vogtle in Georgia, the only new U.S. reactor completed in decades, came in at roughly $35 billion, double the original estimate. Clean Wisconsin’s general counsel noted it "wouldn’t be built for probably 10-15 years" and questions what it’s being built for given data centers need power now. (Lazard LCOE+ 2025; WPR)

Bipartisan support in Wisconsin: The Assembly passed a nuclear tax incentive bill 86-11. Governor Evers signed two nuclear-supporting bills (a siting study and a Nuclear Power Summit Board). (WisPolitics)

Community concerns: Residents are broadly supportive of a new plant but nervous about transparency. EnergySolutions has been purchasing hundreds of acres of farmland around the site without confirming what it intends to build beyond a nuclear plant. Residents want assurance the land won’t be used for data centers. (Wisconsin Watch)

Related Civic Minute segments: Where Does Your Electricity Come From? (CM-34), Who Decides Your Electric Bill? (CM-39), The Sun Doesn’t Send a Bill (CM-30)

What Energy Independence Actually Means

Civic Media — Wed, 22 Apr 2026 01:31:51 +0000

You hear it every election: "energy independence." It sounds simple. Drill more, import less, control our own destiny. But the more you look at it, the more complicated it gets.

The United States produces more oil than any country on Earth. We’re also a net importer of crude — over six million barrels a day — because our refineries were built for a different kind of oil than we drill. We export what we produce and import what we need. And even at record production, when Iran choked off the Strait of Hormuz, gas prices jumped forty-five percent. Because oil is priced on a world market. Drilling more doesn’t change that.

So what would actual energy independence look like? Not relying on a commodity whose price you can’t control. It would mean running on energy sources that don’t have a world price — because there’s nothing to buy. Sunlight. Wind. A battery in your basement. The only energy you truly control is energy you don’t have to import.

Learn More

The U.S. is the world’s largest oil producer — and still a net importer. Production is roughly 13.8 million barrels per day, yet we import over 6.2 million bpd of crude because our refineries need a different type of oil than we drill. The "net petroleum exporter" label politicians use includes natural gas liquids and refined products — it’s misleading about crude oil specifically. (EIA; Poynter/PolitiFact)

The refinery mismatch: U.S. shale produces light, sweet crude. About 70% of U.S. refinery capacity was built for heavy, sour crude from Canada, the Middle East, and Venezuela. Retooling costs $100M-$1B per facility. (American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers)

Record production didn’t prevent the price spike. When Iran blocked the Strait of Hormuz in early 2026, crude jumped roughly 45% to $95-100/barrel — despite the U.S. being at record production. Resources for the Future noted: "There is no such thing as energy independence, particularly when it comes to oil." Energy economist Mark Finley of Rice University put it simply: "If something goes wrong anywhere, the price goes up everywhere." (Resources for the Future; FactCheck.org)

"You can’t weaponize the sun." RFF board member Catherine Wolfram used this phrase to capture why renewable energy offers something fossil fuels never can: immunity from geopolitical disruption. Solar and wind have no fuel cost, so their price isn’t affected by wars, pipeline shutdowns, or OPEC decisions. (RFF)

Wisconsin imports ALL its fossil fuels. The state has zero coal mines, zero oil fields, zero natural gas wells. Wisconsin spends roughly $14 billion per year on imported fossil fuels. Every dollar of renewable energy generated in Wisconsin is a dollar that stays in the state. (RENEW Wisconsin)

Related Civic Minute segments: Oil Is a Global Commodity (CM-23), Does Drilling More Lower Gas Prices? (CM-24), We Drill It, Export It, Import What We Need (CM-28), The Sun Doesn’t Send a Bill (CM-30)

One-Third of US Corn Is In Our Gas Tanks

Civic Media — Wed, 22 Apr 2026 01:31:45 +0000

Every gallon of gas you buy is already ten percent ethanol — alcohol made from corn. You’ve been burning corn in your car for years.

Here’s what you may not know: a third of the entire U.S. corn crop — five and a half billion bushels a year — goes to making ethanol. Not food. Not animal feed. Fuel.

Ethanol was created as energy policy — a way to reduce dependence on foreign oil. Environmentally, it’s roughly a wash — modestly less carbon out the tailpipe, but more fertilizer running off into rivers and streams. Over time, it’s become something else: a guaranteed market for a third of America’s corn. That supports corn prices, land values, and rural economies. It’s an agricultural support program that happens to flow through your gas pump instead of through your taxes.

As electric vehicles grow and gasoline demand declines, that market is shrinking. What replaces it is a question Wisconsin’s farm economy will have to answer.

Learn More

All regular gasoline is already 10% ethanol. The E10 blend has been the national standard for years. The national average blend reached 10.2% in 2025. Most people never think about it. (American Farm Bureau)

A third of the U.S. corn crop goes to ethanol — about 5.6 billion bushels a year, roughly 33% of total production. (USDA Agricultural Projections to 2035; Oklahoma Farm Report)

E15 is expanding. Wisconsin is one of eight Midwest states (IL, IA, MN, MO, NE, OH, SD, WI) approved for year-round E15 sales starting 2025. E15 is typically 10-30¢/gallon cheaper at the pump, but comes with 1.5-5% lower fuel economy (EPA says 1.5%, independent testers like Car and Driver say 4-5%). The Nationwide Consumer and Fuel Retailer Choice Act of 2025 would make year-round E15 permanent nationwide. (The Gazette; The Drive)

Environmentally, it’s complicated. Most lifecycle analyses find corn ethanol produces 20-40% fewer greenhouse gas emissions than gasoline. But growing corn for ethanol uses significant fossil fuel (diesel tractors, natural gas for fertilizer, natural gas for distillation, propane for grain drying). And more corn monoculture means more nitrogen fertilizer runoff into waterways, contributing to the Gulf of Mexico dead zone.

It’s not a complete diversion from food. About a third of the corn processed into ethanol comes back as "distillers grains," which are used as animal feed. So the nutritional value isn’t entirely lost to fuel production.

The food vs. fuel tension: Yale professor Kenneth Gillingham and University of Minnesota professor Jason Hill have noted that more corn for ethanol means less for feed, potentially raising food prices. (PBS NewsHour)

Ethanol demand faces a shrinking market. EIA projects U.S. gasoline consumption declining through 2035. If blend rates stay near 10.5%, domestic ethanol use could fall from 14.2 billion gallons (2025) to 13.1 billion by 2035 — roughly 400 million fewer bushels of corn demand. (Farm Bureau)

Wisconsin context: Ranked 8th nationally in fuel ethanol production in 2023. The state produces about twice what it consumes. Year-round E15 is now approved. The ethanol industry nationally supports 56,000 direct jobs and contributed $53 billion to GDP in 2024. (EIA Wisconsin State Energy Profile; NCGA)

Related Civic Minute segments: What’s in a Gallon of Gas (CM-22), When Gas Goes Up, Everything Goes Up (CM-26), The Math on Electric (CM-35)

Who's Subsidizing Whom?

Civic Media — Wed, 22 Apr 2026 01:31:38 +0000

The federal government has subsidized oil, gas, and coal for over a century. How much? That depends on how you count. The Treasury puts direct tax breaks at a few billion a year. Independent analysts who include cheap access to public land and regulatory exemptions put it closer to thirty-five billion. And if you factor in the health costs of pollution — paid for by Medicare, Medicaid, and you — some estimates run into the hundreds of billions.

You can argue about which number is right. But here’s what’s harder to argue with: the oil and gas industry earned over two hundred and fifty billion dollars in profits between 2021 and 2023. In a single good year, they earn far more than the government gives them — by any measure.

These subsidies have been in place for over a hundred years. The industry that receives them has never been more profitable. Whether they still make sense is a question worth asking.

Learn More

There are three ways to measure fossil fuel subsidies — and they produce very different numbers:

Tier 1 — Direct tax expenditures (narrow): The U.S. Treasury’s Office of Tax Analysis puts fossil fuel tax expenditures at about $2.6 billion in fiscal year 2025. The annual average from 1994-2025 has been about $1.6 billion. This is the most conservative measure. (National Center for Energy Analytics)

Tier 2 — Broader direct subsidies: Oil Change International (September 2025) estimates $34.8 billion/year when you include tax breaks, below-market access to public land, regulatory loopholes, and direct spending. This figure has more than doubled since 2017. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA, signed July 2025) added roughly $4 billion/year in new fossil fuel subsidies. (Oil Change International; Yale E360)

Tier 3 — Implicit subsidies (health and environmental costs): The IMF estimates U.S. fossil fuel subsidies at over $760 billion annually when including unpriced externalities — air pollution health costs, climate damages, and other costs the public pays rather than the industry. (IMF)

Industry profits for context: The oil and gas industry earned over $250 billion in profits from 2021-2023. In 2022 alone, U.S. oil companies reaped $301 billion — roughly seven times their pre-COVID average. (NPR)

Over a century of subsidies: Federal support for fossil fuels dates to at least 1918 (tax deductions for intangible drilling costs). Cumulative federal tax expenditures for fossil fuels from 1918-2025 total approximately $549 billion — nearly three times what renewables have received in total. (Center for American Progress)

The industry counterargument: The National Center for Energy Analytics argues the narrow Treasury figure ($2.6 billion) is the accurate measure, and that broader estimates conflate standard business tax deductions with "subsidies." They also note that removing all direct fossil fuel subsidies "would have no meaningful impact on the profitability of the traditional energy industry." (NCEA)

Related Civic Minute segments: Gas Taxes: Where Does the Money Go? (CM-32), What Energy Independence Actually Means (CM-38), Where Does the Money Go? (CM-43)

The Sun Doesn't Send a Bill

Civic Media — Wed, 22 Apr 2026 01:31:32 +0000

Here’s something worth thinking about. A coal or natural gas power plant has two costs: the plant itself, and the fuel it burns every day. When fuel prices spike — like they are now — your electricity bill goes up too, because your utility is paying more for fuel.

A solar farm has one cost: building it. After that, the fuel is free. Same with wind. And in most of the country, new solar and wind are already cheaper to build than new coal or gas plants — even before you factor in the fuel they’ll never have to buy.

That doesn’t mean renewables are perfect. The sun doesn’t always shine. The wind doesn’t always blow. Energy storage is getting cheaper, but it’s not free. These are real challenges.

But here’s what’s not debatable: every kilowatt-hour that comes from a source with no fuel cost is one that can’t be affected by a war, a pipeline shutdown, or an OPEC decision. That’s not an environmental argument. That’s a price stability argument.

Learn More

Two costs vs. one cost: A fossil fuel power plant pays for both construction and ongoing fuel. A solar or wind farm only pays for construction — after that, the "fuel" (sunlight, wind) is free. This means once a renewable plant is built, its operating cost is nearly fixed and largely immune to global commodity markets.

Solar and wind are now the cheapest new electricity. The EIA’s Annual Energy Outlook shows that new solar and onshore wind are cost-competitive with or cheaper than new natural gas combined cycle plants in most U.S. regions, even without subsidies. Lazard’s 2025 LCOE analysis confirms: solar PV LCOE is $38-92/MWh, compared to gas combined cycle at $48-107/MWh and new nuclear at $141-220/MWh. (EIA Annual Energy Outlook; Lazard LCOE+ 2025)

Fuel cost volatility hits your electric bill. Natural gas prices spiked during the 2022 Ukraine invasion and again during the 2026 Iran war. These costs pass directly to electricity ratepayers through utility fuel adjustment charges. Wisconsin’s electricity mix is about 40% natural gas and 30% coal — both subject to global commodity price swings.

"You can’t weaponize the sun." RFF board member Catherine Wolfram used this phrase to capture why renewables offer a hedge against geopolitical risk. Unlike oil, gas, and coal, sunlight and wind have no global price and cannot be disrupted by wars or embargoes. (Resources for the Future)

Energy storage is the remaining challenge. Lithium-ion battery costs have fallen roughly 90% since 2010 and continue to decline. Storage adds cost to renewable projects but is increasingly competitive, especially for 4-hour duration applications. Wisconsin’s first large-scale battery storage facility came online in Kenosha County in 2025. (BloombergNEF)

Related Civic Minute segments: Where Does Your Electricity Come From? (CM-34), What Energy Independence Actually Means (CM-38), When Gas Prices Spike, Your Grid Gets Dirtier (CM-41)

The Pipeline You've Never Thought About

Civic Media — Wed, 22 Apr 2026 01:31:25 +0000

Since 1953, a pipeline called Line 5 has carried oil and natural gas liquids from Superior, Wisconsin, across the Upper Peninsula, down through lower Michigan, and into Canada.

You’ve probably heard people argue about it. Environmentalists want it shut down. Enbridge, the company that owns it, says that would be a disaster. Here’s what the data shows.

The gas price impact of shutting it down? About half a cent per gallon — and that’s from Enbridge’s own expert. But the propane impact is real. Line 5 delivers about sixty-five percent of the Upper Peninsula’s propane. Families heat with it. Farmers dry grain with it. There’s no quick replacement.

The long-term answer may be cold-climate heat pumps, which now work well below zero and can cut heating costs in half for propane users. But that transition takes years. Right now, the honest answer is more complicated than either side admits.

Learn More

What is Line 5? A 645-mile pipeline running from Superior, Wisconsin, across Michigan’s Upper and Lower Peninsulas, to Sarnia, Ontario. It carries up to 540,000 barrels per day of light crude oil and natural gas liquids. It’s been operating since 1953 and is owned by Canadian company Enbridge. (Enbridge Line 5)

The gas price impact of a shutdown is minimal. Enbridge’s own expert, Neil Earnest, testified in the Bad River Band federal lawsuit that shutting Line 5 would raise gas, diesel, and jet fuel prices by roughly half a cent per gallon in Wisconsin and Michigan. Independent analysis by London Economics International confirmed: 0.45-0.58¢/gallon. When both lines actually shut down for 19 days in 2020 after an anchor strike, dire price predictions did not materialize. (WPR; Michigan Advance)

The propane impact is real. Line 5 delivers about 65% of the Upper Peninsula’s propane and 55% of Michigan’s statewide propane needs. About 320,000 Michigan households heat with propane, plus approximately 8,000 farms. Natural gas liquids are offloaded at a terminal in Rapid River, near Escanaba, processed into propane, and shipped by truck to regional customers. The Michigan PSC and EGLE have said no viable alternative exists at current scale. (Enbridge propane data)

Wisconsin reroute: Enbridge began construction in February 2026 on a 41-mile reroute of Line 5 around Bad River Band tribal lands in Ashland and Iron counties. (Mining Journal)

Cold-climate heat pumps as a long-term solution: Modern heat pumps now work down to -15°F to -23°F, handling 80-90% of heating needs in Wisconsin/UP climates. Switching from propane can save $500-$1,500/year. The DOE’s Cold Climate Heat Pump Challenge produced new products rated for 100% heating capacity at 5°F and above. For extreme cold, a "dual-fuel" setup — heat pump for most of winter, propane backup for the coldest stretches — is recommended. (WI PSC Heat Pumps; RMI Wisconsin Analysis; Center for Energy and Environment)

Related Civic Minute segments: How Gas Gets to Your Pump (CM-25), Heating in the North (CM-31), When Gas Goes Up, Everything Goes Up (CM-26)

EVs in a Wisconsin Winter

Civic Media — Wed, 22 Apr 2026 01:31:18 +0000

Can an electric car handle a Wisconsin winter? The honest answer: it depends on your life.

Cold weather does cut range. At freezing, most EVs keep about eighty percent of their rated miles. On the coldest days — zero, five below — plan on losing thirty to forty percent. What most people don’t realize is that gas cars lose fifteen to twenty-five percent of their range in cold weather too — you just don’t notice because your gas gauge doesn’t show miles remaining.

For a daily commuter driving fifty miles round-trip and charging at home overnight, the math works fine — even in January. For longer rural trips, the charging network is the real question. It’s growing fast, but coverage up north is still thin.

Norway is colder than Wisconsin, and ninety percent of new cars sold there are electric. It works — but it took years of building the right infrastructure. That’s the question for Wisconsin: not whether EVs can handle winter, but how fast we build what they need.

Learn More

How much range do EVs lose in winter? Recurrent Auto’s study of 30,000 vehicles during the 2025-2026 winters found EVs retain about 78% of their rated range at 32°F on average. At 5°F, fleet data shows roughly 50% of rated range. Wisconsin and Minnesota drivers "routinely plan for 30-40% winter penalties." (Recurrent Auto; EV Energy Hub)

Gas cars lose range in cold weather too. DOE testing shows internal combustion vehicles lose about 15% of their range at 20°F. For shorter trips, fuel economy loss can reach 24%. The difference: your gas gauge doesn’t show "miles remaining," so the loss is invisible. (ZETA)

Heat pumps help. Most new 2025-2026 EVs include heat pumps as standard equipment, which cut winter energy consumption 10-15% compared to older resistance-heated models. Preconditioning (warming the battery and cabin while still plugged in) is the single biggest thing a driver can do to preserve winter range. (Energy Solutions Intelligence)

Best and worst winter performers: Tesla Model Y leads with just 11.8% winter range loss. Audi E-Tron retains 87% of range. On the other end, the VW ID.4 lost up to 37% in testing. The variation is significant — thermal management design matters a lot. (EV.com/Recurrent)

Charging infrastructure: 236,000 public EV charging connectors nationwide as of December 2025 — more than double the 2021 count. Most new EVs now have NACS ports for Tesla Supercharger access. But coverage in northern Wisconsin remains thin. (ZETA)

Norway proves it works. About 90% of new cars sold in Norway are electric, despite winters as harsh as Wisconsin’s. The key was building extensive charging infrastructure and adapting driving habits. (EV Energy Hub)

The technology is still improving. DOE-funded research is testing all-climate batteries with internal heating foils that can raise battery temperature from -30°C to room temperature in 30 seconds. (C&EN/American Chemical Society)

Related Civic Minute segments: The Math on Electric (CM-35), Heating in the North (CM-31)

We Drill It, Export It, and Import What We Need

Civic Media — Wed, 22 Apr 2026 01:31:11 +0000

The United States produces more oil than any country on Earth. It also imports over six million barrels a day. Both of those things are true at the same time. Here’s why.

The oil America drills is mostly light and sweet — low sulfur, easy to refine. But about seventy percent of our refineries were built decades ago to process heavy, sour crude — the thick, high-sulfur oil from Canada, the Middle East, and Venezuela. So we export the oil we drill to refineries overseas that can use it, and we import the heavy crude our own refineries were designed for.

It sounds absurd. But retooling a single refinery to switch crude types costs hundreds of millions of dollars and takes years. So instead, we trade.

That’s why "energy independence" is misleading. We have plenty of oil. It’s just not the right oil for our own refineries. And even if it were, the price is still set on a world market.

Learn More

The U.S. is the world’s largest oil producer AND a major importer. The U.S. produces roughly 13.8 million barrels per day — more than any country in history. It also imports about 6.2 million barrels per day and exports about 4 million. The "net petroleum exporter" label that politicians cite includes natural gas liquids and refined products, not just crude oil — which is like calling a country that exports wine and imports grain a "net agricultural exporter." (EIA; Poynter/PolitiFact)

The crude oil mismatch: U.S. shale produces mostly light, sweet crude (low sulfur, API gravity above 40). But roughly 70% of U.S. refinery capacity was built to process heavy, sour crude — the thick, high-sulfur oil historically imported from Canada, the Middle East, and Venezuela. About 90% of U.S. crude imports are heavier than domestically produced shale crude. (American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers; EIA)

Why not just retool the refineries? Switching a refinery from heavy to light crude processing costs $100 million to $1 billion per facility and takes years. With dozens of refineries nationwide, the total investment would be enormous. Canada remains the primary source of heavy crude imports — about 65% of all U.S. crude imports. (Drilling Maps)

Even solving the mismatch wouldn’t fix the price. Oil is globally priced. A disruption anywhere — whether in the Strait of Hormuz or a Gulf Coast hurricane — raises prices everywhere, regardless of how much the U.S. produces or how well-matched its refineries are. (FactCheck.org)

Related Civic Minute segments: Oil Is a Global Commodity (CM-23), Does Drilling More Lower Gas Prices? (CM-24), What Energy Independence Actually Means (CM-38)

When Gas Goes Up, Everything Goes Up

Civic Media — Wed, 22 Apr 2026 01:31:04 +0000

When gas prices spike, it’s not just your commute that gets more expensive. It’s your groceries. Your heating bill. Everything that moves by truck, train, or tractor costs more — and in America today, that’s almost everything.

Take farming. Wisconsin farmers run on diesel — for planting, harvesting, hauling. The fertilizer they spread is made from natural gas. The propane that dries their grain comes through pipelines from hundreds of miles away. When energy prices rise, farmers get squeezed from every direction — and those costs show up at the grocery store.

But does it have to be this way? You’ve already seen electric cars on the road. Electric semi trucks are starting to join them. And most freight locomotives already run on electric drivetrains — the diesel engine is just a generator, which means they’re surprisingly easy to convert to battery power.

Every piece of the supply chain that moves off oil is one less place where a crisis in the Middle East can reach into your wallet.

Learn More

Energy costs are embedded in everything you buy. Fuel powers the tractors that grow food, the trucks that deliver it, the trains that haul raw materials, and the heating systems that keep businesses running. When energy prices spike, costs ripple through the entire supply chain — and consumers pay more for goods that may have nothing directly to do with gasoline.

Wisconsin farming is especially energy-dependent. Farmers use diesel for equipment, fertilizer made from natural gas (via the Haber-Bosch process), and propane for grain drying. Propane supply is linked to pipeline infrastructure including Enbridge’s Line 5. When energy prices rise, farmers are squeezed from multiple directions simultaneously — and those costs eventually show up at the grocery store.

The "sticky prices" problem: Energy price spikes trigger broad inflation, but when energy costs fall, consumer prices don’t drop equally. Businesses raise prices to protect margins and lower them slowly, if at all. Moody’s Analytics chief economist Mark Zandi noted: "We’re going to be paying the price for this through much of the year." (CBS News)

Freight locomotives are already partly electric. Nearly all U.S. freight locomotives are diesel-electric — the diesel engine powers a generator, which powers electric motors on the axles. This means converting them to battery-electric is more feasible than it sounds, because the drivetrain is already electric. A Berkeley Lab study published in Nature Energy found that switching U.S. freight rail to battery-electric would save $94 billion over 20 years, using half the energy of diesel. (Nature Energy)

Companies working on this: Voltify is retrofitting diesel locomotives and began pilot programs with a Class 1 railroad in early 2026. Wabtec (FLXdrive), Progress Rail (EMD Joule), and Siemens (Charger B+AC) are also developing battery-electric freight locomotives. CSX expects 3 battery-electric units by 2027. (CNBC)

Electric semi trucks are also entering the market, including the Tesla Semi, Freightliner eCascadia, and Volvo VNR Electric. Each electrified link in the supply chain is one less point where global oil prices affect what you pay.

Related Civic Minute segments: Rockets and Feathers (CM-21), Your Gas Is One-Third Corn (CM-37), The Sun Doesn’t Send a Bill (CM-30)

The River Under Your Gas Tank

Civic Media — Wed, 22 Apr 2026 01:30:50 +0000

A single fifteen-barge tow on the Mississippi River carries as much cargo as a thousand semi trucks. Fuel, fertilizer, grain — it all moves by water because nothing else comes close on cost. Over sixty-five percent of America’s agricultural exports travel the Mississippi to reach the world.

But for four years running, drought has been dropping water levels on the river. When the water gets low, barges carry lighter loads. Lighter loads mean more trips. More trips mean higher costs. In 2024, barge rates jumped nearly sixty percent above their three-year average. Those costs flow straight through to fuel prices, fertilizer prices, and grocery prices across the Midwest — including Wisconsin.

And this isn’t a one-time event. Scientists say these swings between extreme wet and extreme dry are becoming more frequent. The river that keeps the Midwest economy moving is becoming less reliable — and there’s no backup system that can replace it.

Learn More

Barges are enormously efficient. A standard 15-barge tow carries as much cargo as 1,050 semi trucks or 216 train cars. This is why bulk commodities — fuel, fertilizer, grain, construction materials — move by water whenever possible. (Waterways Council)

The Mississippi is America’s agricultural highway. Over 65% of U.S. agricultural exports bound for international markets move on the inland waterway system. Ninety-two percent of agricultural exports pass through the Mississippi River Basin. (Wisconsin Watch / Inside Climate News; National Park Service)

Four consecutive years of drought have hammered river levels. In 2022, Memphis recorded water levels 11 feet below the historic average. Barges grounded in 2022 and 2023. The Army Corps of Engineers has had to dredge earlier than normal each year. By early September 2024, barge rates from St. Louis had jumped 57% above their three-year average. (USDA via Inside Climate News)

The costs flow downstream to consumers. Mississippi River mayors warned that fuel prices jumped roughly 20 cents overnight along the river in 2026 due to the combined effects of the Iran conflict and rising transportation costs. (ABC News)

The climate pattern is getting worse. Ohio State climatologist Aaron Wilson has documented an emerging pattern of rapid oscillation between extreme wet and extreme dry conditions. The Fifth National Climate Assessment found 5-15% precipitation increases across the Midwest over 30 years, but with much more extreme variability — meaning bigger floods AND bigger droughts. (Fast Company)

Wisconsin connection: A Wisconsin-based tug pilot, Captain Mike Napper, explained the economics: lighter loads mean more trips, which means higher costs for everything that moves by barge. Some Wisconsin soy growers are investing in new export terminals — including one on Lake Michigan in Milwaukee — to reduce dependence on the Mississippi route. (WVIK/NPR)

Related Civic Minute segments: How Gas Gets to Your Pump (CM-25), When Gas Goes Up, Everything Goes Up (CM-26)

The Math on Electric

Civic Media — Wed, 22 Apr 2026 01:30:43 +0000

You can now buy a new electric car for under thirty thousand dollars. The Nissan Leaf starts at about thirty thousand with over three hundred miles of range. The Chevy Bolt is coming in just under twenty-nine. These aren’t concept cars. They’re on dealer lots.

That’s close to what a new gas car costs. But the real difference shows up over time. Electricity costs roughly four cents a mile to drive. Gasoline costs twelve to fifteen. That’s a thousand dollars a year or more in fuel savings. There are no oil changes, no transmission service, and brake pads last two to three times longer because the motor does most of the braking.

Add it up over five years, and an EV can cost eight to twelve thousand dollars less to own than a comparable gas car — even if the sticker price is similar. The upfront price gets the headlines. The running cost is where the math actually happens.

Learn More

Affordable EVs are here now. The redesigned 2026 Nissan Leaf starts at $29,990 with 303 miles of EPA range. The new 2027 Chevy Bolt arrives mid-2026 at $28,995 with 255 miles of range. Both use NACS charging ports, meaning they can access Tesla’s Supercharger network. (Autoblog; CarGurus)

More options under $40K: The Chevy Equinox EV ($35,000, 319 miles), Hyundai Ioniq 5 (reduced to $37,500, 318 miles), and Kia EV3 (~$35,000, 300+ miles) all offer competitive range and features. (Sierra Club)

The federal tax credit is gone — but deals abound. The $7,500 federal EV tax credit expired September 30, 2025 under the OBBBA. However, automakers are offering discounts of $7,500-$10,000 on many models, and dealers are sitting on 130 days of EV inventory. (Autoblog)

The fuel cost math: Electricity costs roughly $0.04 per mile to drive. Gasoline costs $0.12-0.15 per mile. That’s $1,000-1,500 per year in fuel savings alone. (DOE/fueleconomy.gov)

Maintenance savings are significant. No oil changes, no transmission service, no spark plugs. Brake pads last 2-3 times longer because regenerative braking does most of the work. Total maintenance savings: roughly $800-1,200 over three years compared to a gas vehicle.

Total cost of ownership: Over five years, an EV can cost $8,000-12,000 less to own than a comparable gas car — even at a similar sticker price. Consumer Reports total cost of ownership studies have consistently found EVs cheaper to own over time.

The used EV market is booming. A wave of lease returns from 2023-2025 is flooding dealer lots with low-mileage EVs at steep discounts. Used EV sales were up 12% in Q1 2026. (Autoblog)

Related Civic Minute segments: EVs in a Wisconsin Winter (CM-36), The Sun Doesn’t Send a Bill (CM-30)

Heating in the North

Civic Media — Wed, 22 Apr 2026 01:30:36 +0000

If you heat your home with propane in northern Wisconsin, your heating bill is tied to global energy markets — just like gasoline. When natural gas prices spiked after the Ukraine invasion, propane followed. When Iran disrupted oil markets this spring, propane moved again. Your cost of staying warm is connected to events thousands of miles away.

And unlike driving, you can’t just heat less to save money. In a Wisconsin winter, you need what you need.

Cold-climate heat pumps are changing that equation. They run on electricity, which is generated locally and priced far more predictably than propane. Today’s models work well below zero — the Department of Energy now certifies units for full heating capacity at five degrees and colder. Propane households that switch can save five hundred to fifteen hundred dollars a year.

Your heating bill doesn’t have to be hostage to the next global crisis.

Learn More

Propane prices are tied to global energy markets — just like gasoline. Propane is derived from natural gas liquids, and its price tracks global energy markets closely. Prices spiked during the 2022 Ukraine invasion and again during the 2026 Iran/Hormuz crisis. Wisconsin Gas customers paid 24% more for gas in May 2022 than October 2021, and 34% more in winter 2021-22 than winter 2018-19. (RMI Wisconsin Analysis)

About 300,000 Wisconsin households use delivered fuels (propane, fuel oil) or electric resistance for heating — all of which are expensive and/or volatile. (RMI)

Cold-climate heat pumps now work well below zero. The DOE’s Cold Climate Heat Pump Challenge produced units that maintain 100% heating capacity at 5°F without auxiliary heat. Modern models maintain 50-70% capacity at 0°F and 30-50% at -10°F. Trane has tested a prototype to -23°F. They can handle 80-90% of heating needs in Wisconsin’s climate. (WI PSC Heat Pumps; Center for Energy and Environment)

Savings for propane users: RMI’s Wisconsin-specific analysis finds propane-to-heat-pump switchers save over $500/year. National data shows $600-$1,500/year savings depending on propane prices and local electricity rates. The Wisconsin Office of Energy and Climate Change states: "The economics of heat pumps are also good if you currently heat with propane, fuel oil or electric resistance heat." (RMI; Dane County Climate Action / WI OECC)

Dual-fuel for extreme cold: The WI PSC recommends dual-fuel systems — a heat pump handles most of winter, with a propane or gas furnace kicking in at a preset low temperature. This provides "flexibility and confidence" for the coldest days. (WI PSC)

Financial help available: The IRA provides up to 30% tax credit for heat pump installation. Focus on Energy (Wisconsin) offers additional rebates. Many Wisconsin electric cooperatives and municipal utilities also offer heat pump rebates. (WI PSC)

Related Civic Minute segments: The Pipeline You’ve Never Thought About (CM-27), The Sun Doesn’t Send a Bill (CM-30), EVs in a Wisconsin Winter (CM-36)

Where Does Your Electricity Come From?

Civic Media — Wed, 22 Apr 2026 01:30:27 +0000

With all the talk about data centers in Wisconsin, you might be wondering: where does our electricity actually come from?

About forty percent is natural gas. Another thirty percent is coal — down from sixty percent just ten years ago. The Point Beach nuclear plant provides about fifteen percent. And renewables — solar, wind, and hydro — make up around twelve percent. Solar doubled last year alone.

Why is solar growing so fast? Because it’s now cheaper to build a new solar farm than a new coal or gas plant — even without tax credits. That’s according to Lazard, one of Wall Street’s oldest investment banks.

The catch is that the sun doesn’t shine at night. That’s why Wisconsin just brought its first large-scale battery storage facility online in Kenosha County. Near Portage, the nation’s first utility-scale CO2 battery is under construction. More projects are in the pipeline across the state.

The mix is shifting. The question is how fast.

Learn More

Wisconsin’s electricity mix (2024): Natural gas ~40%, coal ~32% (down from 61% in 2014), nuclear ~15% (Point Beach), solar ~4%, wind ~3%, hydro ~3%, biomass ~1%. Coal was surpassed by gas for the first time in 2022. (EIA Wisconsin State Energy Profile)

Solar doubled in Wisconsin. Solar generation more than doubled from 2023 to 2024. It became the state’s largest renewable contributor for the first time, providing 41% of renewable generation. The 250 MW Darien Solar Energy Center came online in March 2025. (EIA)

Solar is now cheaper than gas or coal for new builds. The EIA’s Annual Energy Outlook 2025 found solar PV LCOE is lower than natural gas combined-cycle on average for new plants. Lazard’s 2025 analysis confirmed that unsubsidized utility-scale solar is cheaper than new natural gas. Solar LCOE: $29-92/MWh. Gas combined cycle: $61-93/MWh. Coal: $69-169/MWh. (EIA AEO2025; Lazard via pv magazine)

Battery storage is arriving in Wisconsin:

Paris Solar-Battery Park (Kenosha County): Wisconsin’s first large-scale battery storage. 110 MW storage + 200 MW solar. Online June 2025. (WPR)
Columbia Energy Storage Project (near Portage): Nation’s first utility-scale CO2 battery. 20 MW/200 MWh, 10-hour duration. Using Energy Dome technology. Operational by 2027. Located at the site of the retiring Columbia coal plant. (Utility Dive; Alliant Energy)
More in the pipeline: Black Mountain (Milwaukee, 300 MW/1,200 MWh), Tern (Green Bay, 200 MW/800 MWh), Koshkonong Solar + 165 MW BESS (Dane County). (Renewable Energy World)

Wisconsin imports all its fossil fuels. The state has zero coal mines, zero oil fields, and zero natural gas wells. All coal is imported (primarily from Wyoming’s Powder River Basin via rail), all natural gas from Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Kansas, and Canada. Wisconsin spends roughly $14 billion/year on imported fossil fuels. (RENEW Wisconsin)

Data center demand is driving new construction. Six or more major data centers are planned or under construction in Wisconsin. The Port Washington facility alone would need 1.3 GW of power. Utilities are building billions of dollars in new infrastructure to meet this demand. (Wisconsin Watch)

Related Civic Minute segments: The Sun Doesn’t Send a Bill (CM-30), Point Beach, Kewaunee, and the Nuclear Question (CM-40), Who Decides Your Electric Bill? (CM-39)

The Sheboygan Story

Civic Media — Tue, 21 Apr 2026 21:43:45 +0000

Sheboygan held a Democratic Assembly seat almost continuously from 1959 to 2011. Over fifty years. Then the 2011 redistricting happened. Republicans were in charge of drawing the maps, and they split the city in two — half into one district, half into another — each packed with enough rural conservative voters to flip both seats.

The city hadn’t changed. The people hadn’t changed. The only thing that changed was the lines on a map. And just like that, fifty years of representation disappeared.

This is what gerrymandering looks like up close. Not an abstract political concept. A community, divided with surgical precision, so that the people who live there no longer get to choose who represents them.

Sheboygan isn’t the only place this happened. But it’s a good reminder that when politicians draw the maps, it’s real people who pay the price.

Learn More

Sheboygan’s redistricting history: Democrats held Sheboygan’s Assembly seat almost continuously from 1959 to 2011 — over 50 years. During the 2011 redistricting, Republicans split the city between the 26th and 27th Assembly Districts, each drawn with enough rural conservative voters to ensure Republican wins. In 2022, Governor Evers won the city of Sheboygan by 11 points, but lost Sheboygan County by 16 — illustrating how the cracked city was diluted by surrounding rural areas. (Wisconsin Watch / WPR, December 2022)

The 2011 redistricting process was conducted by Republican legislative staff in secret, with the assistance of a private law firm. Democratic legislators were given no input. The maps were designed using sophisticated voter data to maximize Republican advantage. This process was challenged in federal court in Gill v. Whitford (2018), which reached the U.S. Supreme Court but was dismissed on standing grounds. (UW Applied Population Lab)

"It just verifies for me that gerrymandering is a highly effective way of destroying democracy." — Mary Lynne Donohue, former Assembly candidate from Sheboygan and plaintiff in the Gill v. Whitford lawsuit. (Wisconsin Watch)

New maps changed the picture. Governor Evers signed new legislative maps in February 2024 after the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled the old maps unconstitutional. Under the new maps, Sheboygan is no longer split between two Assembly districts in the same way. The 2024 elections were the first under the new boundaries, and Democrats flipped 10 Assembly seats statewide.

General gerrymandering resources: See CM-5 (Packing and Cracking) for links to PlanScore, Princeton Gerrymandering Project, MIT Election Data + Science Lab, Brennan Center, and Dave’s Redistricting App.

Related Civic Minute segments: Packing and Cracking (CM-5), What Gerrymandering Is (CM-7), The People Already Agree (CM-9)

How Safe Seats Make Politics Worse

Civic Media — Tue, 21 Apr 2026 21:43:33 +0000

When a district is drawn so that one party is guaranteed to win, something happens to the politics. The general election stops mattering. The only election that counts is the primary — and primaries are dominated by a small number of the most dedicated party voters.

So candidates don't compete for the middle. They compete for the edges. They take more extreme positions, because that's who shows up to vote in a low-turnout primary. The incentive isn't to represent the district — it's to avoid getting outflanked by someone even more partisan.

This isn't a theory. Watch what happens in safe districts. The rhetoric gets hotter. The positions get more rigid. Compromise becomes a dirty word — because compromising with the other side can cost you the only election that matters.

Gerrymandering doesn't just pick the winners. It pulls them toward the extremes. And all of us pay for it.

Learn More

Only 8% of voters are choosing 83% of Congress. A 2022 Unite America report found that just 8% of all eligible voters cast ballots in partisan primaries for "safe" congressional seats — yet those primaries effectively determined the winners in 83% of all House contests. The problem is getting worse: by 2024, just 7% of voters effectively elected 87% of the House. (Unite America; Unite America 2024 analysis)

95% of House seats are "safe." The Cook Political Report's 2024 ratings found only 22 of 435 House races were true toss-ups — about 5%. FairVote's analysis found five of six 2022 House races were decided by more than 10 points. (Bipartisan Policy Center)

Members of Congress know where the real threat is. Brookings Institution's Primaries Project found that in safe seats, "members of Congress know that the only place they can be defeated is in a primary. Thus, members of Congress are finely attuned to that electorate — in some instances, more so than to their general election electorate." (Brookings)

The Bipartisan Policy Center's Commission on Political Reform concluded that primary elections are "corroding our political system in an era of high polarization." (BPC)

Wisconsin's own data: Under the old gerrymandered maps, only 4 of 99 Assembly races were decided by fewer than 5 points in 2022. In 29 districts, one party didn't even field a candidate. Under the new maps in 2024, 82 of 99 districts had both-party candidates — the most since 2010. (See CM-8, Competition)

Further reading:

Katherine Gehl and Michael Porter, The Politics Industry (Harvard Business Review Press, 2020) — argues the political system functions like a duopoly that suppresses competition
Nick Troiano, The Primary Solution: Rescuing Our Democracy from the Fringes (Simon & Schuster, 2024) — makes the case that primary reform is the single most impactful democratic reform
Protect Democracy, "How Did We Get Here: Primaries, Polarization, and Party Control" (2025)
Brookings, "A Primer on Gerrymandering and Political Polarization"
The Fulcrum, "When Politicians Pick Voters: Why Gerrymandering Is Undermining Democracy"

General gerrymandering resources: See CM-5 for links to PlanScore, Princeton Gerrymandering Project, MIT Election Data + Science Lab, Brennan Center, and Dave's Redistricting App.

Related Civic Minute segments: Competition (CM-8), Packing and Cracking (CM-5), Final Five Voting (CM-3)

What Gerrymandering Is

Civic Media — Tue, 21 Apr 2026 21:43:28 +0000

Every ten years, after the census, Wisconsin’s legislative districts get redrawn to reflect where people live. And in Wisconsin, the politicians in power draw those lines. Think about that. The people who benefit from the maps are the same people drawing them.

In 2011, Republicans controlled the legislature and the governor’s office, and they drew maps that locked in their advantage for over a decade. In 2023, the Wisconsin Supreme Court struck down those state legislative maps and new, fairer ones were drawn. The results were immediate — in 2024, fourteen seats flipped, and both parties actually had to compete for control.

But here’s the thing. The court only fixed the state legislative maps. Wisconsin’s congressional district maps, for the US Congress, are still based on that same 2011 gerrymander. Those congressional maps aren’t changing before this November. And as long as politicians draw their own maps, this cycle repeats every ten years.

Learn More

How redistricting works in Wisconsin: Every ten years, after the census, legislative districts are redrawn. In Wisconsin, the legislature draws the maps and the governor signs or vetoes them. Whichever party controls both has enormous power to shape elections for the next decade.

The 2011 maps were drawn by Republican legislative staff in secret, with the assistance of a private law firm. Democratic legislators were given no input. The maps locked in a Republican supermajority even in years when Democrats won more total votes statewide. (Wisconsin Watch / WPR)

The 2023 court ruling: In Clarke v. Wisconsin Elections Commission (December 2023), the Wisconsin Supreme Court struck down the state legislative maps as unconstitutional. Governor Evers signed new maps in February 2024.

The 2024 results were immediate. Under the new maps, Democrats flipped 10 Assembly seats and 4 Senate seats. The Assembly went from 64R-34D to 54R-45D. For the first time in over a decade, both parties had to genuinely compete for legislative control.

Congressional maps are still gerrymandered. Wisconsin’s eight U.S. House districts were redrawn in 2022 after the 2020 Census, but the then-conservative Wisconsin Supreme Court adopted Governor Evers’ proposed maps using a "least changes" approach that largely preserved the 2011 district structure. The result: Republicans hold six of eight seats in a state that’s roughly 50-50 statewide. In 2024, Trump won the state by less than 1 point, but Republicans won 75% of the congressional delegation. Democrats hold what advocates call the "lowest mathematically possible" number of seats given the state’s voter distribution. (Wisconsin Independent; Wisconsin Watch; Law Forward; PBS News)

The lawsuits have largely failed — for now. One lawsuit (Bothfield v. WEC) was dismissed by a three-judge panel on March 31, 2026 — the panel ruled it lacked authority to overrule the Supreme Court. The Wisconsin Supreme Court separately declined to hear a direct challenge in June 2025. A second lawsuit by Wisconsin Business Leaders for Democracy is expected to go to trial in 2027. No new congressional maps before the 2026 elections. (WPR; Wisconsin Examiner; Wisconsin Watch)

The deeper problem: As long as politicians draw their own maps, this cycle repeats every ten years. Advocates like Law Forward and the Fair Maps Coalition push for an independent redistricting commission to take map-drawing out of politicians’ hands.

Related Civic Minute segments: Packing and Cracking (CM-5), The Sheboygan Story (CM-6), Competition (CM-8), The People Already Agree (CM-9)

The Next Ten Years Are on the Ballot

Civic Media — Tue, 21 Apr 2026 21:43:22 +0000

Wisconsin has fair legislative maps right now. But there’s no guarantee they stay that way. In 2031, after the next census, the maps get redrawn. And whoever controls the legislature and the governor’s office at that moment will decide how it’s done.

That means every race this November — from governor to state Assembly — will determine whether the next decade of maps is fair or gerrymandered. Governor Evers isn’t running again. The next governor will hold the veto pen. And the legislature will either pass redistricting reform or protect the status quo. Remember — nobody was paying attention to these races in 2010, and we got a decade of gerrymandering.

So when candidates knock on your door this fall, ask them one question: do you support an independent redistricting commission? If they dodge it, you have your answer.

The next ten years of representation are on the ballot this November. Pay attention.

Learn More

The 2030 census triggers redistricting in 2031. The Wisconsin Constitution requires the legislature to redistrict in the first session following each census. Whoever controls the legislature and the governor’s office at that moment decides how it’s done.

Current fair maps aren’t permanent. The maps signed by Governor Evers in February 2024 were ordered by the Wisconsin Supreme Court (Clarke v. WEC, December 2023). But the process hasn’t changed — the legislature still draws the maps. Without a constitutional amendment establishing an independent commission, the next trifecta government can gerrymander again.

Governor Evers is not running again. He announced in July 2025 that he would not seek reelection in 2026. The next governor will hold the veto pen over any redistricting legislation — and over the maps themselves when they’re redrawn after 2030.

What’s on the ballot in November 2026: All 99 Assembly seats and half the Senate seats. Under the new fair maps, Democrats have a realistic shot at winning one or both chambers (currently 54R-45D in the Assembly, 18R-15D in the Senate). The outcome will determine who draws the 2031 maps — or whether an independent commission draws them instead.

Neither party has clean hands. Democrats held a trifecta in 2009-2010 and didn’t pass redistricting reform. Republicans gerrymandered aggressively in 2011 and 2021. The lesson: process reform, not party control, is the only lasting solution.

The question to ask every candidate: "Do you support an independent redistricting commission?" If they dodge it, that tells you what they plan to do with the power once they have it.

The Fair Maps Coalition’s plan aims to have an independent redistricting commission established before 2031. Phase 2 (legislative advocacy) is underway. Visit fairmapswi.com.

Related Civic Minute segments: The People Already Agree (CM-9), Get in the Fight (CM-19), The Special Session (CM-11), What Gerrymandering Is (CM-7)

The Special Session

Civic Media — Tue, 21 Apr 2026 21:43:16 +0000

On April 14th, the Wisconsin legislature is scheduled to convene a special session called by Governor Evers. The topic: a constitutional amendment to ban partisan gerrymandering.

Here’s what usually happens with special sessions in Wisconsin. The governor calls one. The legislature gavels in. And then, within seconds — sometimes literally within thirty seconds — they gavel back out. No debate. No discussion. Session over.

It’s happened on gun violence. On abortion. On school funding. On child care. On the state budget. Every time, the same result.

This time, the question is gerrymandering — an issue that fifty-six Wisconsin counties have voted to reform. An issue where the voters have spoken over and over again.

So: will the legislature listen this time? Or will it be another thirty seconds? That’s up to them — and it’s up to you to tell them which one you expect.

Learn More

What happened on April 14: Republicans gaveled in but immediately postponed the special session — they did not adjourn. Unlike past gavel-in-gavel-out sessions, the legislature left the session open, with Republicans signaling ongoing conversations about redistricting reform. Senate Majority Leader Devin LeMahieu said "redistricting is a core legislative power and any changes to the current process have to be made intentionally and specifically using normal legislative procedure." Assembly Speaker Robin Vos said Republicans would be "more than happy to negotiate" but criticized the governor’s one-sentence amendment proposal as lacking detail. (WPR; Civic Media)

Democrats were ready to act. Senate Minority Leader Dianne Hesselbein held a press conference denouncing the lack of action, saying Democrats were "in the Senate chamber ready to discuss, debate and pass the constitutional amendment banning partisan gerrymandering." (WPR)

Why "postponed" matters more than "adjourned": In past special sessions (gun violence 2019, abortion 2022, budget surplus 2022, child care/workforce 2023), Republicans gaveled in and immediately adjourned — ending the session permanently in as little as 30 seconds. This time, postponing instead of adjourning leaves a procedural door open for negotiations. Assistant Majority Leader Scott Krug said: "If we leave it open, that means there’s conversations ongoing. That’s a good sign." (WPR)

The governor’s proposal: Executive Order #285 called for the legislature to pass a constitutional amendment banning partisan gerrymandering. A constitutional amendment requires passage by two successive legislatures, then approval by voters in a statewide referendum. (Wisconsin Examiner; WisPolitics)

The broader context: Evers is in his final year as governor. Without a permanent change to the redistricting process before 2030, whoever controls the legislature and governor’s office after the next census will draw the maps — potentially returning to partisan gerrymandering. (Wisconsin Examiner)

General gerrymandering resources: See CM-5 for links to PlanScore, Princeton Gerrymandering Project, MIT Election Data + Science Lab, Brennan Center, and Dave’s Redistricting App.

Related Civic Minute segments: The People Already Agree (CM-9), What Gerrymandering Is (CM-7), The Next Ten Years Are on the Ballot (CM-20)

The Redistricting Arms Race

Civic Media — Tue, 21 Apr 2026 21:43:11 +0000

Right now, across the country, a redistricting war is underway. It started last summer when the White House pressured Texas to redraw its congressional maps to lock in more Republican seats. North Carolina and Missouri followed. Democrats hit back — California approved new maps, Virginia started the same process.

Six states have redrawn their maps already. More are coming. The country hasn't seen this much mid-decade redistricting in over fifty years.

For years, states have been slowly moving toward independent redistricting commissions to take the politics out of map-drawing. This arms race blew that progress apart in a matter of months.

Here's the truth: as long as who draws the lines determines who wins, this fight never ends. There's a bill in Congress — the Fair Representation Act — that would replace single-member districts with proportional representation, making gerrymandering pointless. That's not a ceasefire. That's ending the war.

Learn More

The highest level of mid-decade redistricting since the 1800s. Six states — California, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, Texas, and Utah — enacted new congressional maps between the 2024 and 2026 elections. Before 2025, only two states had conducted voluntary mid-decade redistricting since 1970. (Ballotpedia; Congressional Research Service)

How it started: President Trump pressured Texas to redraw its maps in summer 2025 to lock in more Republican seats. Texas Democrats fled the state to deny a quorum but ultimately failed to stop the process. In response, California voters approved a ballot measure in November 2025 allowing the legislature to redraw maps — potentially gaining Democrats five House seats. (ABC News)

The escalation continues. Virginia voters approved a constitutional amendment on April 21, 2026 allowing mid-decade congressional redistricting, passing 51%-49%. The proposed new map could net Democrats four additional House seats, giving them 10 of Virginia's 11 districts. Florida Governor DeSantis called a special session on redistricting for April 21, 2026. Maryland and Washington have introduced redistricting legislation. Indiana Republicans explored new maps at Vice President Vance's urging. CNN called the overall redistricting war "something close to a draw," though Republicans could gain a slight advantage if Florida passes new maps. (CNN; MultiState; The Fulcrum)

Texas maps face legal challenge. A federal court in El Paso ruled on November 18, 2025 that the Texas maps constituted an illegal racial gerrymander and barred their use in the 2026 elections. The U.S. Supreme Court temporarily blocked the ruling on November 21. The case remains in litigation. (Wikipedia)

Net partisan impact may be a wash. The Cook Political Report projects that the likeliest scenario is neither party netting seats due to redistricting overall — Democratic gains in California and Virginia roughly offset Republican gains in Texas, North Carolina, Missouri, and Ohio. (Cook Political Report)

The progress that was lost: For years, states had been moving toward independent redistricting commissions — California (2010), Arizona, Michigan, Colorado. This arms race blew that progress apart in months. California even bypassed its own commission via ballot measure. (Center for American Progress)

Federal legislation on the table:

Redistricting Reform Act of 2025 (Rep. Lofgren, Sen. Padilla): Would prohibit mid-decade redistricting nationwide and require every state to establish independent redistricting commissions. 50+ co-sponsors. (Rep. Lofgren press release)
Fair Representation Act (H.R. 4632): Would go further — replacing single-member districts with multi-member districts elected by ranked choice voting, making gerrymandering structurally impossible. (FairVote)

General gerrymandering resources: See CM-5 for links to PlanScore, Princeton Gerrymandering Project, MIT Election Data + Science Lab, Brennan Center, and Dave's Redistricting App.

Related Civic Minute segments: What Gerrymandering Is (CM-7), The Oldest Democracy (CM-13), The Next Ten Years Are on the Ballot (CM-20)

Get in the Fight (Fair Maps CTA)

Civic Media — Tue, 21 Apr 2026 21:42:59 +0000

You’ve probably heard a lot about gerrymandering — how the politicians in power draw their own maps to protect their own seats. You know the problem. Here’s what you can do about it.

The Wisconsin Fair Maps Coalition has been organizing this fight for years. Right now, they’re holding community hearings across the state — from Waukesha to Luck to Oconto — to get your input on a proposed Independent Redistricting Commission that would take map-drawing out of politicians’ hands for good. They’ve held over twenty hearings so far, and more are coming.

You can show up to a hearing near you. You can sign their pledge. You can put a Fair Maps yard sign in your front lawn. You can write a letter to your local paper — they’ve got a template ready for you. Or you can request a speaker for your church, your rotary club, your neighborhood group.

Find everything at fair maps w-i dot com. That’s fairmapswi.com.

Learn More

Wisconsin Fair Maps Coalition is a statewide coalition of dozens of organizations and thousands of volunteers working to establish an independent redistricting commission before the 2030 Census. Visit fairmapswi.com.

Take action — here’s how:

Attend a community hearing: fairmapswi.com/communityhearings — check for upcoming dates and locations near you
Sign the pledge: fairmapswi.com/petition24
Volunteer: fairmapswi.com/join
Request a speaker for your church, rotary club, or community group: bit.ly/FMCspeaker
Write a letter to your local paper — the coalition provides templates
Yard signs: Contact the coalition directly
Donate: wisdc.org/get-involved/donate (via Wisconsin Democracy Campaign)

Member organizations include: Common Cause, Law Forward, League of Women Voters, RepresentUs Wisconsin, All Voting is Local, Campus Vote, Leaders Igniting Transformation, Souls to the Polls, and many more. (About the Coalition)

The coalition’s three-phase plan: (1) Public education and community input, (2) Legislative advocacy, (3) Constitutional amendment establishing an independent redistricting commission. (fairmapswi.com)

56 of 72 counties have already passed resolutions calling for nonpartisan redistricting. 32 counties have put it to a vote — and voters approved it overwhelmingly every time. (See CM-9, The People Already Agree)

Related Civic Minute segments: The People Already Agree (CM-9), What Gerrymandering Is (CM-7), The Next Ten Years Are on the Ballot (CM-20)

Packing and Cracking

Civic Media — Tue, 21 Apr 2026 21:41:19 +0000

Gerrymandering works with two basic moves. They’re called packing and cracking.

Packing means stuffing as many of your opponent’s voters as possible into a single district. They win that one seat in a landslide — eighty, ninety percent — but all those extra votes are wasted. They could have helped win seats somewhere else.

Cracking is the opposite. You take a community that would have enough voters to win a district and split it across two or three, so they’re outnumbered in every one.

That’s what happened in Sheboygan. A city with fifty years of Democratic representation was cracked in half — split between two districts packed with enough rural voters to flip both. The people didn’t move. The lines did.

In Wisconsin in 2018, thanks to gerrymandered maps, one party won sixty-three of ninety-nine Assembly seats with just forty-five percent of the vote. Nearly two-thirds of the seats, with less than half the votes. Perfectly legal. But it doesn’t need to stay that way.

Learn More

What are packing and cracking? The two core techniques of partisan gerrymandering. Packing concentrates opposing voters into as few districts as possible so they win those seats by huge margins but "waste" votes that could have been competitive elsewhere. Cracking splits a community of opposing voters across multiple districts so they’re outnumbered in each one. The two strategies work in tandem: you pack some voters so you can crack the rest. (Marquette Law Faculty Blog; UW Applied Population Lab)

The Sheboygan story: Democrats held Sheboygan’s Assembly seat in all but four years from 1959 to 2011. During the 2011 redistricting, Republicans split the city between the 26th and 27th Assembly Districts, each drawn to include enough rural voters to ensure Republican wins. The city went from 50 years of Democratic representation to zero — without its voters moving. (Wisconsin Watch / WPR)

The 2018 election numbers: Republicans won 63 of 99 Assembly seats with just 44.75% of the statewide vote. Democrats won approximately 53% of votes but only 36 seats. That year Democrats won every statewide race (governor, attorney general, etc.) but couldn’t come close to an Assembly majority. (Wikipedia; Wisconsin Watch)

The efficiency gap: Under the 2011 maps, the Wisconsin Assembly’s efficiency gap — a measure of how many votes are "wasted" due to gerrymandering — averaged 11%. In 2018 it hit 15.4%, the fourth-highest Republican skew in nearly 1,000 statehouse elections between 1972 and 2020. (PlanScore via Wisconsin Watch)

The margins tell the story: In the 10 closest Assembly races Republicans won in 2022, the average margin was 7.5 points. In the 10 closest for Democrats, it was 15.2 points. This asymmetry is the signature of packing — Democratic wins are lopsided while Republican wins are efficient. (Wisconsin Watch / WPR)

New maps are now in place. Governor Evers signed new legislative maps into law in February 2024 after the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled the old maps unconstitutional. The 2024 elections were the first under the new maps, and Democrats flipped 10 Assembly seats.

"Perfectly legal" — and the Supreme Court says it’s not their problem. In Rucho v. Common Cause (2019), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that partisan gerrymandering claims are political questions beyond the reach of federal courts. Chief Justice Roberts wrote that the Constitution does not provide federal courts with a standard for judging when partisan gerrymandering goes too far. This means reform must come from state courts, state legislatures, ballot initiatives, or Congress — not the federal judiciary. (Rucho v. Common Cause, 588 U.S. 684)

General resources on gerrymandering and redistricting:

PlanScore — Nonprofit that scores redistricting plans for partisan fairness using the efficiency gap and other metrics.
Princeton Gerrymandering Project — Grades every congressional and state legislative map in the country for partisan fairness, competitiveness, and geographic features.
MIT Election Data + Science Lab (MEDSL) — Nonpartisan research lab producing election data, including redistricting analysis and election performance metrics.
Brennan Center for Justice — Research and advocacy on redistricting reform, with detailed state-by-state analysis.
Dave’s Redistricting App — Free tool that lets anyone draw and analyze redistricting maps using real census and election data.

Related Civic Minute segments: The Sheboygan Story (CM-6), What Gerrymandering Is (CM-7), Competition (CM-8), How Safe Seats Make Politics Worse (CM-10)