Unintended consequences

Landmark Supreme Court case could make gerrymandering worse The Supreme Court is gearing up to hear oral arguments in the partisan gerrymandering case Benisk v. Lamone. When it was first introduced, the case appeared to be a clever legal challenge to partisan redistricting. But a lot has changed since then, and rather than providing a blueprint for other challenges to gerrymanders, the case could potentially wind up entrenching them instead. [READ MORE]( [Whistleblower claims Trump aides met with Cambridge Analytica prior to campaign]( [READ MORE]( [Global study finds US corporate leaders show least interest in tackling climate change]( [READ MORE]( [Austin continues to be rocked by mysterious bombings]( [READ MORE]( [Martina Navratilova reveals staggering pay gap between herself and male Wimbledon commentator]( [READ MORE]( [‘Will & Grace’ episode reinforces anti-gay talking points on wedding cake discrimination]( [READ MORE]( “It was disappointing that our school teaches us to be like Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King Jr. — people who stood up for what they believed in. And they weren’t going to let us do the same.” [Anna Sophie Tinneny]( a high school senior who was given detention for participating in the school walkouts last week CAPAF | ThinkProgress Center for American Progress Action Fund 1333 H Street, NW Washington, DC 20005 United States This email was sent to{EMAIL}. [unsubscribe](