by Lois Beckett, ProPublica

On Monday, the Supreme Court heard arguments in a Texas redistricting case that could have major implications for minority voters — as well as determine which party is likely to control Congress after the 2012 elections.

Here’s our guide to why the case matters, why it could pose a challenge to part of the Voting Rights Act [1], and what impact the Court’s ruling could have on voters across the country.

Our update on Monday’s oral arguments is here [2].

How did this case end up in front of the Supreme Court?

At its most basic, the case is contesting which district maps Texas will use in the 2012 elections.

This seems like a dry question, but it’s not. Thanks to population growth, Texas is gaining four seats in Congress, and how the district lines are drawn is likely to determine whether those additional seats will be won by Democrats or Republicans — and how big an impact minority voters will have in deciding who the new representatives will be.

Because those four seats could help determine which party controls the House of Representatives, the Texas case is being closely watched across the country.

As it has done before [3], the Republican-dominated state legislature drew maps that heavily favor Republicans [4].

At least three of the four [5] new congressional districts were drawn in a way that seemed likely to favor Anglo Republican candidates — even though Latinos and African-Americans accounted for most of the state’s population growth [6].

The legislature’s maps immediately faced legal challenges from minority groups who argued that the lines were drawn to purposefully weaken the ballot power of Latino voters — as well as from the Department of Justice, which argued that Texas’ state house and congressional map plans [7] are illegal because they diminish the ability of minority voters to elect the candidate of their choice [8].

Because the ongoing legal battle over the legislature’s maps was interfering with the state’s election schedule [9], the federal district court in San Antonio drew an alternate set of maps for the state to use [10].

These maps are seen as being more favorable to minority voters [11] — as well as much friendlier to Democrats [12].

Rather than use these court-drawn maps, the state of Texas appealed the case to the Supreme Court [13], arguing that the state court overstepped its bounds, and that, because of the time-crunch, the legislature’s original plans should be used for the … Click to continue

Former SC Republican Chair, C. Kenneth Powell, reflects on a less vicious political era

Interview with C. Kenneth Powell (Former SC Republican Chair)

… Click to continue

by Abrahm Lustgarten ProPublica

This is part of our year-end series, looking at where things stand in each of our major investigations.

This was the year that “fracking” became a household word.

It wasn’t just that environmental concerns about the underground drilling process finally struck a mainstream chord — after three years of reporting and more than 125 stories [1]. For the first time, independent scientific investigations linked the drilling technique with water pollution [2], and a variety of federal and state agencies responded to the growing apprehension about water contamination with more studies and more regulation.

The most important development — and perhaps a crucial turning point — was in December. In a landmark finding [3], the Environmental Protection Agency concluded that hydraulic fracturing was the likely culprit in a spate of groundwater contamination that had forced residents to stop using their water in dozens of homes in central Wyoming. The agency had been investigating since 2008.

Earlier in the year, a study published through the National Academy of Sciences [4] determined that in Pennsylvania, private water wells in close proximity to fracked gas wells were 17 times more likely to be contaminated with methane gas.

Those studies are separate from a national research project [5] the EPA has undertaken to assess the risks fracking poses to water resources. The agency is examining five case studies across the country and is now estimating that some of its report will be complete by the original 2012 deadline and the rest will continue into 2014.

The study is meant to help Congress and regulators determine whether fracking should be regulated like other similar processes under the Safe Drinking Water Act and whether companies that frack should be forced to disclose the details about the chemicals they use.

Last winter, the Obama administration — which has repeatedly referred to natural gas as a bridge fuel and encouraged its development — urged the Department of Energy to conduct its own assessment of fracking’s safety on a quicker timeline than the EPA.

In a matter of months, a DOE panel determined that the environmental risks were substantial [6] and needed to be addressed in order to safely develop more natural gas resources. The panel raised concerns that pollution could have serious health consequences for those who live close to drilling operations.

Indeed, a report published by ProPublica [7] in September found that residents in drilling areas across the country complained of serious health symptoms ranging from skin lesions to tumors, and that health and science organizations … Click to continue