Category: Academic Reportage

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Allyson Gold, Professor of Law, Wake Forest University

Housing costs are eating up more and more of Americans’ monthly budgets.

Half of renters and a quarter of homeowners are cost-burdened, meaning they spend more than a third of their income to pay their rent or mortgage. Roughly 27% of renters are spending more than half of their income on rent.

In March 2026, the U.S. Senate passed a bipartisan housing bill to boost housing supply in the United States. More supply, the thinking goes, will staunch the surge in homes prices and rents. In the nation’s 50 biggest cities, for example, rents for one- and two-bedroom apartments have increased roughly 40%, not adjusted for inflation, since 2020. This legislation, however, is currently stuck in the House, overshadowed by issues like the Iran war and Supreme Court decisions.

While housing reforms in the U.S. remain gridlocked, the U.K. has been dealing with its own housing problems: 70% of Britons say housing unaffordability has become a national crisis. Across England, rents have spiraled, homelessness has risen and deteriorating and dangerous housing conditions have threatened the health of tenants.

In response, the U.K. Parliament passed the Renters’ Rights Act, a major housing law that officials described as a “once in a generation” set of reforms.

More power for tenants

The bill became law after receiving Royal Assent and took effect in England on May 1, 2026.

Its signature reform is to eliminate no-fault eviction, also known as Section 21 eviction. Under a Section 21 eviction, landlords were able to terminate a month-to-month or fixed-term tenancy without fault, even if tenants paid rent on time and complied with the lease. The only stipulation was they had to provide two months’ notice.

This will sound somewhat familiar to American readers: The vast majority of jurisdictions in the U.S. allow a landlord to terminate a month-to-month tenancy for any reason, as long as the landlord provides adequate notice.

In North Carolina, for example, where I live, a tenant with a month-to-month lease is only legally entitled to a seven-day notice of eviction under state law.

In England, Section 21 evictions were responsible for a 50% increase in the number of people experiencing homelessness from 2021 to 2022. Going forward, a landlord can still remove a tenant for a valid reason, but tenants will no longer be vulnerable to eviction when they have done nothing wrong.

The legislation also limits rent increases. Under the new law, a landlord may only increase the rent to market price, must provide at least two months’ notice before an increase can take effect, and can only increase the rent once per year. A tenant who suspects their landlord has imposed an “above market” rent increase can bring the landlord to court.

It’s important that this change is occurring in tandem with the discontinuation of no-fault eviction. Without restrictions on rent increases, a landlord who lost the ability to use no-fault eviction could still empty a property by simply jacking up the rent to a rate that the tenant could not afford.

Finally, the law also takes steps to improve the conditions of England’s private rental housing stock by applying certain existing public housing standards, like strict timelines to address mold and damp, to the private rental sector.

It gives local housing authorities the ability to levy fines against private landlords who fail to meet these new standards. The new law also creates a rental housing registry that British tenants can search to get information about a prospective landlord or property. This will give tenants crucial information about a property before moving in and entering into a lease with a landlord.

A legislative pie in the sky?

Even though housing advocates have long pushed for these types of reforms to U.S. landlord-tenant law, the current legislation under consideration by Congress doesn’t directly address renters’ rights. Instead, it seeks to streamline costs and regulations for builders to boost the housing supply, while giving access to more financing for buyers.

One reason renters’ rights are often not addressed at the federal level is the U.S. system of federalism, which divides authority between the federal government and the states. By and large, landlord-tenant regulation falls within the realm of state or municipal government.

Some state and local governments have used this power to enact rental housing policy. For example, Oregon largely prohibits eviction without cause. Chicago keeps a Building Department registry that tenants can search to see if a prospective rental has a history of building code violations. And New York City’s rent regulations have survived multiple court challenges over the years. As recently as 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court reiterated that states have broad discretion to regulate the landlord-tenant relationship, which includes implementing rent control and rent stabilization arrangements.

This jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction approach means that an American tenant’s rights can vary dramatically based on where they happen to live.

When crisis expands the window of possibility

That said, the U.S. federal government has intervened to protect tenants during acute crises.

In 2009, during the mortgage foreclosure crisis, Congress passed legislation to prevent tenants from experiencing eviction if banks foreclosed on the homes they occupied.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention used its public health powers to institute a nationwide eviction moratorium to slow the spread of infection. Though the Supreme Court struck down the order 11 months later, the fears that opponents to the moratorium raised didn’t pan out: There was no widespread, coordinated nonpayment of rents, nor did the rental housing supply collapse.

These reforms helped widen the Overton window – the range of policies deemed politically possible.

If unaffordability in the U.S. continues to worsen, perhaps rental housing issues will receive more political oxygen, with more legislation proposed at the federal level.

Until then, cities and states will have to continue leading the way.

Allyson Gold does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. England’s ‘once in a generation’ housing law takes effect as US housing legislation sits in congressional purgatory – https://theconversation.com/englands-once-in-a-generation-housing-law-takes-effect-as-us-housing-legislation-sits-in-congressional-purgatory-281504

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Geoff Childs, Professor of Sociocultural Anthropology, Washington University in St. Louis

Imagine a place where every home has paraphernalia for distilling spirits, where there is a toast for nearly any occasion, and where your taxes – paid in grain, not cash – are deposited straight into a communal still.

Welcome to Nubri.

A valley in northern Nepal, Nubri is home to roughly 3,000 Tibetan Buddhist highlanders. Over the course of three decades, I have spent a lot of time in Nubri studying the interplay of demographic trends and social change. Often that has been in the company of an ethnomusicologist colleague, Mason Brown, who studies local musical traditions.

While conducting research, we both became aficionados of the local intoxicants chang and arak, and we were taught how to brew and distill them by Nubri resident and research collaborator Jhangchuk Sangmo Thakuri.

Other scholars of Tibetan and Himalayan societies have commented on the importance of chang for ritual purposes and as a social lubricant. In Nubri, which is predominantly ethnic Tibetan, we learned firsthand the integral role both drinks had in maintaining local rituals, the economy and developing social relationships.

The basics of brewing

Let’s start with the basics. Chang is a fermented, noncarbonated beverage made from corn, barley or rice. A starter culture, partially derived from a previous fermentation, is added to warm, boiled grain, which is then stuffed into a container with water and sealed. The fermentation process takes a few days to two weeks, depending on variables such as temperature and one’s preference for the brew’s strength.

To make arak, the mash of fermented grain is transferred to a still that is placed over an open fire. The evaporated liquid – essentially concentrated alcohol – condenses and drops into a catch basin when it contacts a vessel at the top filled with cool water. The distillation process takes roughly an hour.

Chang is unfiltered and often contains a fair amount of sediments. It is low in alcohol – roughly 3% to 6% ABV, or equivalent to a European lager – and is considered a refreshing drink, especially while working in hot weather. Although it varies by brew, chang is generally slightly sweet, with a tinge or sourness.

Arak, by contrast, is clear and dry, similar in flavor and mouthfeel to Japanese sake. Based on taste and effect, we estimate that most batches clock in at 15% to 25% ABV – stronger than a glass of wine, but less potent than, say, whiskey.

All but the poorest households in Nubri own a still; those who don’t borrow one from neighbors when they have surplus grain.

To hell … or glory?

Evidence suggests that chang has been consumed by Tibetans for centuries. A story purportedly from the seventh century describes how court officials were dispatched by an emperor to find a boy with magical powers. When they encountered a child and asked where his parents were, he responded, “Father has gone to search for words. Mother has gone to search for eyes.” The father showed up carrying chang and the mother bearing fire.

Despite chang’s antiquity, Tibetans have their share of teetotalers and prohibitionists. For example, 15th-century Buddhist lama Ngorchen Kunga Zangpo argued, “Since one (who drinks) created and accumulated the karma of a mad person, one’s body will come to ruin, and after one has died, one will be born among the hell-beings of the lower realms of existence.”

The message is elegant in its simplicity – drink and you’ll go to hell!

Kunga Zangpo’s warning aside, intoxicating beverages have long been valued in Nubri society.

Writing in the mid-18th century, Pema Wangdu, a Nubri lama famous for composing songs of spiritual realization, recounts how when seeking guidance from a local lama, he needed to present an offering, so he filched chang from home while his family members were working in the fields.

Pema Wangdu’s main teacher, Pema Döndrub, also from Nubri, describes a visit to a neighboring valley in which an official asks local villagers to bring the lama and his entourage some chang. Apparently they brought more than enough, because Pema Döndrub retorted, “We kept the tasty chang and sent the unappealing stuff away.”

Chang is also commonly mentioned in Nubri’s folk songs, which have been passed down for generations. In one, the singer rejoices that he has had multiple windfalls of good luck: He lives in a civilized country, inhabits a golden chamber and has an elegant foal and many sheep. Proclaiming that his prosperity is deserved, the singer commands his wife, “Don’t even think of giving me less chang!”

A drink for all occasions

Nowadays, people in Nubri prefer the more potent arak over chang. This is evident during Buddhist rituals where arak provides some participants with stamina and a bit of levity. Others, especially monks, abstain.

The drinks are procured through the local temple’s tax system. When a couple form a new household, they accept a mandatory loan of roughly 100 kilos of grain from the village temple. Every subsequent year they are required to repay one-third of the loan as interest.

Each ritual has an associated “Loan Document” that specifies what percentage of a household’s annual repayment is used to support that event. The system ensures that a tremendous amount of the harvest is acquired so that it can be fermented and then processed in the temple’s stills.

An associated document titled “Rules (Made By) the Monasteries” specifies when, how much and to whom arak should be distributed throughout the ritual.

Each serving event has a name. There is “connection chang” honoring the auspicious first gathering of ritual participants, “commencement chang” to mark the beginning of each day, and “bedtime chang” for the end of each day.

During an offering to the deities, participants are served “victory chang,” signaling a wish that their entreaties are successful, and “good fortune chang” in anticipation of positive outcomes.

One more for the road

A final vignette helps illustrate how chang and arak are woven into Nubri’s social and religious fabric.

In May 2023, we departed Nubri after completing a long research stint. Dorje Dundul, an old friend, accompanied us to a religious structure marking the outer boundary of his village. From the depths of his tunic, he extracted a flask filled with arak, inserted the stem of a medicinal herb into the liquid while chanting prayers, then sprinkled droplets into the four directions as an offering to ensure our safe passage.

Afterward, he handed us the flask and urged, “Chö, chö” (“Drink, drink”). We each took a long draft of the warming liquid.

He then capped the flask, placed it into the side pocket of our backpack and said, “This is lamchang (road beer). Travel safely.”

During the grueling descent to the lowlands, the parting gift fortified us while providing a constant reminder of Dorje’s concern for our well-being. “One for the road” never felt so good.

Ethnomusicologist Mason Brown and Nubri researcher Jhangchuk Sangmo Thakuri contributed to this article.

Geoff Childs receives funding from the National Science Foundation.

– ref. Cheers! Welcome to the Nepalese village where everybody knows how to distill – https://theconversation.com/cheers-welcome-to-the-nepalese-village-where-everybody-knows-how-to-distill-271372

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Casey Pinto, Associate Professor of Public Health Sciences, Penn State

Syphilis is a sexually transmitted infection caused by the bacteria Treponema pallidum.

During pregnancy, this bacteria can pass from a mother with untreated syphilis, known as maternal syphilis, to her child in utero, causing the fetus to contract congenital syphilis.

In January 2026, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that the rate of maternal syphilis rose by 28% from 2022 to 2024, from just over 280 to nearly 360 cases per 100,000 births.

I’m a public health researcher and infectious disease nurse practitioner. I study disparities in sexually transmitted infections, or STIs, and I’m currently conducting a study on syphilis in pregnancy.

A perfect storm of factors behind the rise

Two factors in particular have to be taken into consideration to understand the steep rise in cases.

One is the rise in syphilis cases in the general population – which naturally leads to an increase in maternal syphilis – and the other is the specific variables such as funding and access to care barriers that affect pregnant women when it comes to the spread of this disease.

The overall trend of increasing syphilis rates is the result of what I would describe as a perfect storm of factors, from lack of funding to COVID-19. The rate of syphilis infections in the U.S. has been steadily increasing since 2000.

In 2018, there was a sharp increase in this rate, as the group predominantly affected by this STI shifted from men who have sex with men to the general population of both men and women.

This shift caused an increase in rates of maternal syphilis, which has led to a 700% increase in congenital syphilis cases since 2015.

Public health funding for all sexually transmitted infections, excluding HIV, has been stagnant for decades, at about US$160 million annually. When accounting for inflation and rising costs, this has resulted in a 40% reduction in spending power today.

Unfortunately, each year Congress suggests cutting funding to both STI and healthcare access programs. These cuts have largely not been implemented in the final appropriations packages.

But each year, further steep cuts are proposed. The 2026 appropriations recommend combining three programs – HIV, STI and tuberculosis – and cutting $70 million from the combined programs.

On top of this funding shortfall, the COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated many of the underlying barriers to healthcare access that allowed the steadily increasing syphilis rates to increase faster. During the pandemic, safety-net clinic staffing and hours were reduced, which limited the availability of screening and treatment services.

Another factor driving the increase in syphilis cases has been a change in sexual behaviors over the past 25 years. During the early days of the HIV epidemic in the 1980s, sexual behaviors that led to HIV rapidly changed, leading to safer sex habits. However, by the early 2000s, improved HIV treatments meant that HIV was no longer a death sentence, but a manageable chronic condition.

While this was, of course, good news, it also meant that safer sexual behaviors began to decline, resulting in increased chances of exposure to HIV and other STIs, including syphilis.

The role of stigma

Social stigma and biases from both healthcare providers and patients themselves can affect whether someone gets tested or seeks treatment for symptoms.

While this affects all patients, it is particularly problematic for pregnant patients. Pregnant people are supposed to be screened for syphilis in the first and third trimesters. But a healthcare provider may assume it’s unnecessary to ask questions about a patient’s sexual behaviors or to order the necessary tests, especially in the case of longtime patients known to be in monogamous relationships.

Furthermore, the patient may hesitate to admit to risky sexual behaviors, or may not realize they have been exposed through a partner’s infidelity.

Barriers to care

Another driver of the increase in maternal syphilis is the difficulty in accessing prenatal care: 1 in 4 pregnant people do not have access to prenatal care in their first trimester.

Barriers to accessing healthcare vary based on race and ethnicity, availability of transportation, economic status, rural or urban location and insurance status. Most of these factors exist across all health conditions, but for pregnancy, insurance status offers a particular obstacle. Pregnancy is a qualifier for enrolling in Medicaid if income requirements are met. However, this enrollment can sometimes take months, and some prenatal care clinics will not see patients until coverage is approved.

This means patients are beyond the first trimester before their syphilis screening is done. But that first-trimester screening and intervention has the greatest potential to reduce the risk of congenital syphilis

Knowing the symptoms

Syphilis is characterized by different symptoms in each of the four stages of the disease. During the primary stage, within a few days to a few weeks of infection, most patients develop a painless ulcer at the site of exposure. This sore may go unnoticed and resolve on its own. However, the infection remains.

The secondary stage occurs 3 to 6 months after exposure. Patients commonly have flu-like symptoms, possibly some weight loss, swollen lymph nodes and a rash that covers the chest and back. This rash doesn’t itch, and it can spread to the palms of the hands or soles of the feet. Other symptoms include hair loss, mouth lesions, hearing loss and vision changes, but these symptoms may not all appear. This phase typically lasts a few weeks and then resolves with or without treatment.

The disease then enters the latent phase, when the bacteria can still be active in the body without causing acute symptoms and can last for decades.

Finally, 40% to 60% of patients with untreated syphilis will progress to a tertiary phase of the disease that can lead to any number of negative outcomes, including seizures, heart defects, bone growths, skin growths, confusion and dementia.

Transmission and treatments

The syphilis bacteria can spread easily through the placenta as part of the shared blood supply between mother and fetus. This is more likely to happen within the first year that a person is infected with syphilis, although the syphilis bacteria can spread to a fetus at any stage of infection, causing the unborn baby to develop what’s known as congenital syphilis.

Congenital syphilis can result in a range of negative outcomes, the most serious of which is miscarriage or stillbirth. If the fetus survives, long-term developmental delays, blindness, hearing loss, permanent teeth and bone malformation, heart defects and rashes can occur. Symptoms of congenital syphilis can happen immediately at birth, or they may not be recognized until the child is over 2 years old, when molars erupt, or as bones grow and the changes become more pronounced.

Congenital syphilis is treatable with antibiotics, which will stop progression of the disease but cannot reverse any negative outcomes that have already occurred.

Luckily, syphilis is easily treated with antibiotics such as a long-acting penicillin injection into a muscle. Unfortunately, the long-acting intramuscular injection is in short supply. But anyone who is not pregnant and does not have neurological symptoms – which require intravenous penicillin – can be cured with a course of another antibiotic, doxycycline, for 14-28 days.

Preventing maternal syphilis

The mainstay of prevention is to use a condom when sexually active, or to ensure sexual partners have tested negative for all sexually transmitted infections and are exclusively having sex with each other. In some cases, a person might take doxycycline post-exposure prophylaxis, also called doxy PEP, within 72 hours of sexual activity to prevent syphilis, similar to the way Plan B can be taken to prevent pregnancy.

The most effective prevention method for congenital syphilis is universal screening of all pregnancies at three points: during the first trimester, the third trimester and at delivery.

However, some published studies and a paper currently under review show that only 80% to 90% of pregnancies with private healthcare insurance and [56% to 90% of those on Medicaid] are screened for syphilis at least one time during the entire pregnancy.

Casey Pinto has received funding from Hologic Inc. She has also received honorariums from Hologic and Roche in the past 24 months.

– ref. Syphilis cases in expectant mothers have dramatically risen since the pandemic – here’s what’s driving the trend – https://theconversation.com/syphilis-cases-in-expectant-mothers-have-dramatically-risen-since-the-pandemic-heres-whats-driving-the-trend-275646

Source: The Conversation – USA – By André O. Hudson, Dean of the College of Science, Professor of Biochemistry, Rochester Institute of Technology

When scientist J. Craig Venter and his team announced in 2010 that they had created the first cell controlled by a fully synthetic genome, it marked a turning point in how scientists think about life.

For the first time, DNA – the molecule that carries the instructions for life – had been written on a computer, assembled in a laboratory and used to control a living cell. The achievement suggested something profound: Life might not only be understood but designed.

A biologist widely recognized for his groundbreaking contributions to genomics, including leading efforts to sequence the first draft of the human genome, Venter and his team’s successful creation of the first synthetic bacterial cell is considered pivotal to the field of synthetic biology.

By combining biology and engineering, synthetic biology seeks to design and build new biological systems or redesign existing ones for useful purposes. Rather than only observing how life works, scientists use tools such as DNA synthesis and genetic engineering to “program” cells to perform specific tasks, such as producing vaccines, developing sustainable fuels or detecting environmental toxins.

But how far has the field gone since Venter’s original synthetic bacterial cell?

As a biochemist who uses genomics in my teaching and research, I am interested in understanding what this shift in biology means and how far it has actually taken scientific innovation. Following Venter’s death on April 29, 2026, it is worth revisiting that moment and asking whether synthetic biology has delivered on its promise.

What is synthetic biology?

For much of the 20th century, biology focused on decoding life.

The discovery of DNA’s structure in 1953 revealed how genetic information is stored. Decades later, the Human Genome Project that Venter helped accelerate mapped the full set of human genes.

But Venter and others pushed the field further: If DNA could be read like code, could it also be written?

This idea underpins synthetic biology, which aims to design and construct biological systems rather than simply study them. Instead of modifying one gene at a time, researchers began exploring whether entire genomes could be built and inserted into cells.

In 2010, Venter’s team demonstrated that this was possible. They constructed a bacterial genome and used it to take control of a living cell. While the cell itself was not built entirely from scratch, their work showed that the instructions for life could be engineered.

In other words, synthetic biologists were moving from reading life to rewriting it entirely.

Big promises and bold expectations

Synthetic biology has already led to a range of promising outcomes across medicine, energy and environmental science.

Researchers have engineered microbes to produce lifesaving drugs such as artemisinin, an antimalarial compound, and to manufacture sustainable biofuels that could reduce reliance on fossil fuels. In addition, researchers are using synthetic biology to design organisms capable of detecting and breaking down environmental pollutants, offering new tools for bioremediation.

At the heart of these ideas was a powerful analogy: If biology could be treated like software, then designing organisms might one day resemble writing code.

This vision attracted significant investment and policy attention. The U.S. Government Accountability Office has highlighted synthetic biology’s potential to address challenges in multiple industries while also raising important ethical and safety considerations. For example, synthetic biology techniques could be used to develop biological weapons and could unintentionally harm ecosystems and human health.

Progress slower than expected

Despite this progress, synthetic biology has not fully realized its early ambitions. One major reason is the complexity of living systems.

Early approaches to synthetic biology treated cells as modular systems, where components could be predictably exchanged. In practice, biological systems are highly interconnected. Gene interactions are difficult to predict, and results observed in controlled laboratory conditions do not always scale to real-world environments.

This challenge has been particularly evident in areas such as biofuels, where translating laboratory successes into industrial-scale production has proved difficult.

There are also more fundamental limitations. Scientists still cannot construct a fully living organism from nonliving components alone. Even Venter’s synthetic cell depended on an existing biological system to function.

As a result, the goal of creating life entirely from scratch remains out of reach for now.

New questions and emerging risks

As technology has advanced, it has also raised new ethical and security concerns. The same tools used to design beneficial organisms could potentially be misused.

Synthetic biology is widely recognized as a dual-use field, where advances in gene editing, DNA synthesis and bioengineering may enable not only medical and environmental innovations but also the creation or modification of harmful organisms.

The increasing accessibility of these technologies further lowers barriers to misuse, making biosecurity threats more distributed and difficult to control. At the same time, governance frameworks often struggle to keep pace with rapid technological developments, leaving gaps in oversight and international coordination.

Beyond immediate risks, broader questions remain about how far humans should go in redesigning life and what unintended consequences such changes could have for ecosystems. Engineered organisms may introduce risks such as genetic contamination and ecosystem disruption, which would harm biodiversity and ecosystem services.

These concerns are likely to become more pressing as the technology behind synthetic biology continues to develop, particularly as emerging tools such as artificial intelligence accelerate the design of new biological systems.

Venter’s legacy

The implications of the idea that life could be engineered rather than just observed is still unfolding.

Synthetic biology has not yet delivered a world of fully programmable organisms solving global challenges. But it has changed expectations, both within science and beyond, about what might be possible in biological design.

In that sense, the impact of synthetic biology is already clear: It has altered not just how scientists study life but how society imagines its future.

Venter’s legacy includes the questions he made unavoidable: how far scientists should go in designing life, who gets to decide, and what responsibilities come with that power. The answers remain unsettled. But the trajectory seems to be that science is learning, cautiously and imperfectly, to author life.

André O. Hudson receives funding from the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation

– ref. Synthetic biology promised to rewrite life – with the death of its pioneer, J. Craig Venter, how close are scientists? – https://theconversation.com/synthetic-biology-promised-to-rewrite-life-with-the-death-of-its-pioneer-j-craig-venter-how-close-are-scientists-281963

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Daniel A. Smith, Professor of Political Science, University of Florida

The Sunshine State has joined Texas, California and a handful of other states in the battle of mid-decade redistricting.

On April 29, 2026, in a near party-line vote, the Florida Legislature adopted new congressional maps drawn by a staffer of Gov. Ron DeSantis. The GOP-led effort could lead to four more of Florida’s 28 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives turning Republican. Florida redrew its maps with the same underlying population data just four years ago.

Mid-decade redistricting in Florida was all but inevitable once Donald Trump made partisan map-drawing a national priority. Florida’s Republican legislators had little incentive – or political cover – to resist.

I’m a political scientist, and my research focuses on voting and elections. I’ve served as an expert in redistricting cases in Florida, and I’ve been tracking Florida voters’ opinions on DeSantis’ 2026 redistricting efforts.

What Florida voters think about gerrymandering overall

University of Florida Ph.D. student Rolland Grady and I conducted a representative survey of more than 2,300 Florida registered voters drawn randomly from the publicly available Florida voter file.

Participants had one week, from April 6-13, 2026, to fill out our web-based survey linked to an email invitation. We did not offer any incentives to respondents providing us with their opinions.

The results show broad, principled opposition to partisan gerrymandering in Florida. Roughly two-thirds of Florida voters we contacted said they oppose redrawing district lines to advantage a political party.

What they think about their own party gerrymandering

But beyond gauging how Florida voters feel about gerrymandering in theory, we wanted to see how they responded to actual scenarios of mid-decade redistricting, and whether it mattered to them which party was leading the redistricting.

So we designed an experimental survey: Before respondents were asked how they felt about mid-decade redistricting, each participant was randomly shown one of five different statements.

The control version of this statement read, “The redrawing of congressional district boundaries typically occurs every 10 years, immediately following the U.S. Census.”

The other versions gave that control statement, and then added information about a particular state – California, Texas or Florida – that was redrawing its maps, and which party was endorsing that gerrymandering.

Finally, there was a version of the statement that included the control statement, told voters that Republican Ron DeSantis was endorsing the redistricting in Florida, and then added a third line of text: “As you might know, in 2010 citizens in Florida passed the Fair Districts Amendment with bipartisan support of more than 60% of the vote.”

According to our survey results, Florida Democrats are intensely opposed to gerrymandering for partisan purposes when it is framed as benefiting Republicans. This strong opposition may increase the focus of big donors on Florida, helping to drive fundraising for Democratic candidates. It may also mobilize some Democrats to come out to the polls in November. But when it comes to persuasion, most Democrats who plan to vote in the midterm elections are already highly engaged and unlikely to support GOP candidates anyway.

Florida Republicans also oppose mid-decade redistricting in the abstract. Not surprisingly, support for drawing lines to help the GOP increases when framed as something DeSantis is pursuing, but only by 15 percentage points.

This suggests some latent, principled discomfort among GOP voters. On the other hand, strong messaging from Republican leaders, particularly Trump, in the run-up to the election may override concerns about fairness. Partisanship and leader-motivated behavior will drive many Republican voters to rationalize the GOP’s effort to increase their congressional margins by four seats.

Where independent voters fall

Finally, our poll finds that Florida independent voters have strong and consistently principled opposition to partisan gerrymandering; their support rarely exceeds 15% under any condition. But in Florida, independent voters, who are often registered with no party affiliation, are less politically organized or active than registered Republicans and Democrats. And it’s likely that these voters redrawn into a new congressional district will be even less knowledgeable about who represents them when it’s time to pick candidates.

It is possible that Democrats will be able to use GOP gerrymandering in November to get independent voters to the polls and oppose Republican candidates. But opposition to gaming the system is just one of many factors that will shape how independents vote. Other issues, such as concerns over the rising cost of living, immigration, foreign policy and presidential approval, usually play a much greater role in determining candidate choice in midterm elections.

The Florida GOP’s mid-decade redistricting gambit reveals a troubling truth about American democracy: Voters oppose partisan gerrymandering in principle but tolerate it in practice when their side benefits.

So even though a majority of Florida voters disapprove of the GOP’s effort to tilt the state’s map even further toward electing Republicans, I’m not expecting widespread punishment of Republican incumbents due to these redistricting efforts.

DeSantis is betting that Trump’s influence will paper over GOP voters’ discomfort, that Democrats will stay demoralized, and that independents will stay home in November.

How GOP gerrymandering could backfire

But just because the GOP’s gerrymandering won’t sway voters away from their party doesn’t mean it won’t end up hurting them at the polls.

DeSantis’ map crams Democrats into just four of 28 districts – a high-stakes gamble that requires lightning to strike twice. To succeed for the GOP, the map requires both 2024’s Democratic and independent voter apathy and 2022’s swing to the right by independents.

But midterms tend to bring lower turnout, and today’s economic squeeze plus Trump’s dismal approval ratings make another 2022-style GOP surge highly unlikely.

The worst case for the GOP would be a 2018-style blue wave. It would destroy DeSantis’ gerrymander and could potentially flip three South Florida GOP seats and two in Central Florida to Democrats. Aggressive redistricting may meet unintended consequences come November.

See you in court

Florida Democrats and other groups will likely sue under the state constitution’s Fair Districts amendments, which were adopted in 2010 by Florida voters of all political stripes. These amendments to the Florida Constitution expressly prohibit redrawing districts with the intent to favor or disfavor a political party or an incumbent.

But DeSantis and his lawyers are setting the stage to defend the mid-decade partisan gerrymander. They fully expect that the Florida Supreme Court will strike down the Fair Districts amendments’ ban on partisan redistricting. The odds are stacked against the citizens of Florida who support fair districts.

In my view, the real losers here are the Florida voters, particularly those who approved the state’s Fair Districts amendments in 2010, which were a bipartisan triumph.

Daniel A. Smith is an Advisory Board Member of Common Cause Florida and President of ElectionSmith.

– ref. Gerrymandering is unpopular with Florida voters – my recent survey shows why DeSantis pushed it through anyway – https://theconversation.com/gerrymandering-is-unpopular-with-florida-voters-my-recent-survey-shows-why-desantis-pushed-it-through-anyway-281792