The Red Folder

Last updated May 13, 2024. 

Key stories for the week, brought to you by Lindsey Zhao and the Red Folder team.

Reading for the sake of reading sucks. Telling yourself to read to win a round is nice but ineffective. This condensed news brief helps you understand current domestic and international issues, analyze the news, and gives you opportunities to read more.

Domestic Stories

3 key domestic stories for the week:

1) South Carolina Redistricting Challenge: Level Impossible Rohan Dash

According to Article One of the United States Constitution, states across the nation are required to undergo redistricting every ten years, in coordination with the decennial census. However, for one state, being South Carolina, it’s a little more often than just every ten years.


South Carolina began using its current map in 2022. In January of 2023, the state's map was determined to be racist, primarily because of the way it was distributed, which limits the voting power of Black communities in certain regions. Specifically, Congressional District 1, focused on Charleston (just off to the southeast) was drawn in such a way that moved hundreds of thousands of South Carolinians, much to the benefit of the current controlling party. Although this has happened in other southern states in the recent past, this case has grown prominent.

A few months down the line, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case: Alexander (the President of the South Carolina Senate) v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP. While the case is still going on, legal experts suggest that the Supreme Court has been sympathetic towards Alexander and the South Carolina redistricting officials, which may be due to the two both being a Republican majority.


Unfortunately, no decision has been made yet, which is bad news for the NAACP and those seeking a ruling forcing the redistricting to change. At the moment, South Carolina will be using the maps deemed unconstitutional simply because the decision hasn't been made, making it impractical to effectively change the map. And unfortunately, it looks like it will take some time for a change to effectively happen, because as seen in this Washington Post article, the Brennan Center's Democracy Program senior counsel Michael Li explains that it could take several election cycles before the district will be redrawn in such a way that it meets the appropriate guidelines. 


To make matters worse, the changing of this district has already had actual results. Republican Nancy Mace won the seat for the 1st Congressional District back in 2020 by just 1%, allowing her to essentially flip a seat that had been democratic for the last thirty years. Just two years later, in 2022, following the redistricting, Mace would win by 14%. This is not a coincidence, rather the increase in her support can be attributed to the fact that the black community simply could not vote in that region. In 2024, this year, she may win the seat by an even greater margin, and only when redistricting is completed that is not biased, but more so fair will there actually be a change in who may win that seat.


Unfortunately, it will take time for the South Carolina congressional district to change. But in the end, it will be fair, just as how every other congressional redistricting procedure has happened.

Read more here:

2) What Florida’s Abortion Ban Really Means Sasha Morel

Florida officially has put into practice a six-week abortion ban that was signed into law in September, with impacts that reach far beyond the state. 


Florida’s Supreme Court ruled that a 6-week abortion ban was allowed, interpreting that the State Constitution’s privacy protections do not extend to abortion protections. This decision came after Florida Governor Ron Desantis signed a major abortion ban, setting the limit at 6 weeks, before most women even know that they’re pregnant. 


In fact, a staggering two in three teens (ages 15-19) realize they are pregnant after six weeks. The high rate of women who discover their pregnancy after the six week mark is reflected by trends seen in women who obtain abortions after the six week mark. Currently, the majority of women in Florida (60% to be exact) receive the abortion procedure after the six week mark. As a result, the new ban will affect thousands of women.


But more broadly, the abortion ban taking place in Florida is significant because Florida was seen as the last state in the deep South to still offer abortion procedures. Their 15-week abortion ban was looser than the total bans in neighboring states like Alabama (which bans abortion with no exception for rape or incest). Many women traveled out of their home state to Florida in order to seek abortions, with providers performing annually on 9,000 on out-of-state patients. 


Now, many of these women who are beyond six weeks are unable to legally contact an abortion provider in Florida. As a result, some women have to travel more than 700 miles to the nearest clinics in North Carolina, which is saddled with a 12-week abortion ban, onerous waiting periods, and a requirement of two visits spread over three days. To escape these restrictions, women must travel much further to states like New Mexico, Kansas and Illinois.


Florida’s Supreme Court decision marks a significant hurdle to women fighting for abortion rights in the state and across the country. But, many Republicans, including former president Donald Trump, have been trying to distance themselves from abortion. As it becomes more of a popularly supported issue, many Republicans’ anti-abortion stances leave them vulnerable to political repercussions from moderate voters. 


But women are attempting to fight back. More women in Florida and surrounding regions are using telehealth appointments with out-of-state physicians and mail-order abortion pills like mifepristone. However, this practice is expected to be challenged in court, as red and blue states battle out control over the state of abortion in the US. 


Read more here:

3) Flamed and Deranged: The Future of Governor Kristi Noem AmandaLesly Miranda


The growing dispute between South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem and the tribes in South Dakota has become a focal point of tension and controversy within the state, worsening her chances at becoming Donald Trump’s pick for vice president amidst current controversy over her new book. 


At the heart of the conflict are issues surrounding tribal sovereignty, land rights, and economic development. Governor Noem's administration has clashed with tribal leaders over a range of issues, including the implementation of COVID-19 restrictions on tribal lands, efforts to tax online sales made by tribal businesses, and disputes over the use of fireworks in the Black Hills, a sacred site for many Native American tribes. 


These disputes have exacerbated longstanding tensions between the state government and tribal nations, highlighting broader challenges in the relationship between Indigenous communities and state authorities. As the conflict continues to escalate, it underscores the importance of dialogue, cooperation, and respect for tribal sovereignty in addressing the complex issues facing Native American communities in South Dakota and beyond.


And now, they have gotten much worse. Governor Noem is now on the chopping block, banned from entering nearly 20% of her state after two more tribes banished her this week over comments she made earlier this year about tribal leaders benefitting from drug cartels. 

According to the New York Post, “The Yankton Sioux Tribe voted Friday, the 10th, to ban Noem from their land in southeastern South Dakota just a few days after the Sisseton-Wahpeton Ovate tribe took the same action. The Oglala, Rosebud, Cheyenne River, and Standing Rock Sioux tribes had already taken action to keep her off their reservations. Three other tribes haven’t yet banned her.” 


The ongoing unrest is growing and taking hold of the state as a whole and is affecting her public approval ratings, both in the state of South Dakota and nationwide.


Kristi Noem's banishment from the tribes in South Dakota could have significant repercussions for her re-election prospects. South Dakota's Native American population constitutes a considerable voting bloc, and their support or opposition can sway election outcomes. The governor's contentious relationship with tribal leaders and her administration's handling of issues affecting Indigenous communities may alienate a significant portion of this electorate. Additionally, the banishment could galvanize support for her opponents, who may seize upon the discord between Noem and the tribes to mobilize voters against her. In a state where electoral margins can be tight, losing the support of Native American voters could pose a formidable challenge to Noem's re-election bid. As such, navigating and potentially reconciling with the tribal nations may become a crucial aspect of her campaign strategy moving forward.


The tribes in South Dakota have issued a range of statements regarding Kristi Noem's banishment, reflecting a spectrum of viewpoints and concerns within Indigenous communities. Some tribal leaders have condemned the banishment as a troubling escalation in the ongoing disputes between the state government and tribal nations, emphasizing the need for dialogue and respectful engagement to address underlying issues. Others have expressed frustration and disappointment with Governor Noem's administration, citing a pattern of disregard for tribal sovereignty and a lack of consultation on matters affecting Native American communities. 


Additionally, some tribal representatives have called for accountability and reconciliation, urging state officials to recognize the rights and autonomy of tribal nations and work towards building trust and cooperation for the benefit of all South Dakotans. 


Overall, the statements from tribes underscore the complexities of the relationship between Indigenous communities and state authorities, highlighting the importance of mutual respect, collaboration, and understanding in resolving conflicts and advancing the interests of all stakeholders.


Read More Here:


International Stories

3 key international stories for the week:

1) Battlefields to Ballot Boxes: The Future of Scottish Independence Rowan Seipp 

The nations of the United Kingdom have always been fairly independent. Despite Westminster's best attempts, the last half millennia of British history has seen the ebb and flow of independence movements. However, unlike the 15th and 16th movements, the charge for independence in the 21st century is fought in the ballot box, rather than on the battlefield. Nowhere is this more evident than in Scotland. 


Scotland has been under the rule of the Union Jack since April 12th, 1606. Around four centuries of British rule hasn’t stopped the Scots from attempting to leave. Their last real attempt at independence came in 2014 with a historic independence referendum. The margins were slim with the "No" side winning, with 2,001,926 (55.3%) voting against independence and 1,617,989 (44.7%) voting in favor. Notably, two years after the referendum, the British people voted to leave the EU. The Scots, on the other hand, voted to remain within the European Union by a margin of 24 percent: 62 percent for remain, and 38 percent for leave. There was a majority for remain in every one of Scotland’s local authority areas. Since Brexit, Scottish attitude toward independence has turned more positive. The Scottish National Party (SNP) led the fight for independence. 


Logically, the question now becomes why Scotland can’t hold another referendum. However, the UK Supreme Court ruled that the Scottish government cannot hold an independence referendum without the Westminster government's consent. This means that for the SNP, independence is a much more difficult task to attain. 

Independence becomes all that harder to attain when the government is on the verge of collapse. From 2011 until 2021 the SNP has been the most dominant party in Scotland. In 2021 they were only one seat away from a majority in the Scottish parliament. However, since 2021 the party has been rocked by scandal. The SNP’s party leader Humza Yousaf has had to apologize for COVID-era Whatsapp messages, and MSPs have left for a breakaway “anti woke '' political party. Perhaps the most hilarious scandal to befall Holyrood involves Cabinet Secretary for NHS Recovery, Health and Social Care Michael Matheson. The scandal involved Matheson’s son spending over 11,000 pounds to stream soccer matches. Matheson attempted to write off these charges as government expenses. These scandals have led to a collapse in trust in SNP leadership. 


In the 2021 election, when the SNP finished one seat away from a majority, they had to ally with the Greens. The Green's main issue as a party is the climate. When the two parties formed their alliance one key provision was a climate goal of cutting emissions by 75% by 2030. In a move last week, the SNP scrapped that agreement. This led to the dissolution of the alliance that kept the SNP as a majority. With scandals wreaking havoc on SNP leadership, and the collapse of the power sharing agreement major questions arise about the future of the SNP lead. Earlier this month, a YouGov poll put Britain's opposition Labor Party slightly ahead of the SNP for the first time since Scotland held an independence referendum in 2014. The culmination of this is the resignation of SNP leader Hamza Yousaf. This major shift in public opinion has thrown the future of Scottish independence up in the air. 


Read more 


2) Chad Has a New Dictator Paul Robinson


If one has a very loose definition of the words “free and fair”, it is almost possible to reference whatever happened last week in Chad as a presidential election. Mahamat Idriss Deby allegedly got 61.3% from last Monday, when the polls opened, to last Saturday, when they closed. In reality, though, Deby did not really win an election; instead, he followed the same formula that has been used to rule Chad for decades.


Deby worked his way up from being the son of a military dictator to now becoming one himself. His father, Idriss Déby, was President of Chad from 1991 to 2021 when he was assassinated. He didn’t even go through the facade of elections when he took power, rather opting to overthrow the President (and his former boss) in a military coup after being exiled to Libya by the former. After that, he “won” reelection six times after term limits were canned.


Idriss Déby left office, however, in just as violent a way as he entered it: in 2021, he was killed in a fight against the Front for Change and Concord in Chad (FACT for short), which was trying to overthrow him. His son Mahamat immediately formed a military junta to keep control of the country, and managed to do so in no small part due to the violence that he used to keep control. Protests in 2022 were brutally suppressed, and protests now against the fairness of the recent election are also being suppressed. That’s not even mentioning that the main opposition leader was killed by the government in February. Many other figures in the Chadian opposition movement were barred from running for phony reasons.


Needless to say, the opposition in Chad is not planning to accept the results. The head of the opposition, Succes Masra (who happens to be the country’s Prime Minister), has already asked his supporters to “mobilize” against his own President. It is a scene reminiscent of what happened in Chad during the early 1990s, and if history is any indication, it will not end very well.


Les Transformateurs, the party of Masra which opposed Deby in the election, was founded by the former in 2018 as an opposition to the Chadian government. The party has a large amount of support from the Chadian public, and many actors outside of Chad such as the United States, EU countries, and the African Union have demanded that it be given a fair chance in a free election.


That did not happen. And Deby sees no reason to allow it to happen. The reason? Russia.


While Chad has previously been, generally speaking, an ally of the United States, the natural resources found in Chad, particularly its precious metals, could be an asset to Russia to continue their war in Ukraine. Thus, Chad and Russia have been developing closer ties than they have had before, and as the US demands democratic reforms, Chad threatens to expel the US entirely.


Unfortunately, this is not a case where breaking ties with the West will free Chad from the current exploitation it currently endures. Rather, it is likely to make them worse as Russia does not care how badly Deby treats his people, as long as they get their precious metals. If the US tries too hard to leverage Chad to democratize, they risk accidentally giving influence in Chad fully up to Russia. While there may be some power America has, it must use that power cautiously; overshooting the mark will hurt not just America’s interests, but the Chadian people too.


Read more here:

3) Georgian Democracy: The State of Georgia and the Bills That Threaten It Ella Fulkerson

Georgia, a former Soviet nation, is currently facing a pressing threat to its democracy. The ruling Dream Party has introduced a bill that not only jeopardizes the state of democracy within the country but also provides a gateway for Russia to extend its influence globally. This development has triggered widespread alarm among experts, as its ramifications could be profound, potentially reshaping the global political landscape. To fully grasp the gravity of this bill and its consequences, a deep dive into its specifics is necessary, along with an understanding of its impact on Georgia and its potential ripple effects on the state of democracy worldwide.  


It is crucial to understand the impact of the Foreign Agents Bill first to understand the history of Georgia. After heavy fighting, Russian forces took the Georgian capital, Tbilisi (then known as Tiflis to most non-Georgian speakers), and declared the Georgian Soviet Socialist Republic on 25 February 1921. In the 1980s, an independence movement increased, leading to Georgia's secession from the Soviet Union in April 1991. For much of the subsequent decade, the country endured economic crises, political instability, and secessionist wars in Abkhazia and South Ossetia. 


Now, the country is a parliamentary representative democratic republic with close ties to many democratic countries, including the United States. Yet, these relationships are now being threatened by an introduced bill. 


As of this month, Georgia has introduced a Russian-like bill that has become highly contentious within the country itself. Thousands have taken to the streets protesting the bill to reduce foreign influence by requiring organizations that receive 20% or more funding abroad to register as agents of foreign influence. This is a significant issue for many reasons. This shows that the Georgian government aims to reduce outside countries' impact on their media, similar to how Russia and China reduce the media influence within their countries to convince their citizens that their government is in the right. 


The Foreign Agents Bill has caused widespread concern among many Georgians and international experts. It has raised questions about the state of democracy in Georgia and the government's commitment to protecting it. The passing of this bill could have significant implications for the country's democratic institutions and its relationship with other democratic nations. But why? Russian influence in Georgia has been a concern since the 20s, but now, this Russian influence could mean more for the state of democracy. 


The Georgian law closely mirrors the Russian foreign agent law, which requires anyone who receives support from outside Russia or influence from outside Russia to register and declare themselves as foreign agents. This limits freedom of speech and press within the country. While this may not be as big of an issue for a communist country like Russia, it is an issue when discussing a relatively recently formed democratic republic and a nation that remains vulnerable to outside influence. With increased Russian influence in another country where the US has security interests, the question arises: Can the US combat Russian influence internationally? The most significant way the US can continue to combat Russian influence is by encouraging protests within Georgia, connecting with governments worldwide, and promoting the democratic ideals these nations hold dear. 


The introduction of Georgia's Foreign Agents Bill is a pivotal moment in the country's democratic journey and global position. The bill's similarities to Russian legislation raise concerns about potential threats to freedom of speech and press, fundamental pillars of any democratic society. The widespread protests and international apprehension underscore the seriousness of this issue, not just for Georgia but for democracies worldwide grappling with similar challenges. 


The history of Georgia's struggle for independence and democratic stability provides context to the current debate. The bill's implications stretch beyond domestic policy, signaling potential shifts in global power dynamics and Russia's influence in the region. As Georgia navigates this delicate balance between sovereignty and external pressures, the international community must stand firm in upholding democratic values and supporting nations facing similar challenges. 


The fate of Georgia's democracy ultimately lies not just in legislative decisions but in the collective efforts of citizens, civil society, and international partners to defend democratic principles and resist authoritarian influence. The ongoing dialogue and activism surrounding the Foreign Agents Bill serve as a reminder of the enduring importance of democracy and the continued fight to protect it in a rapidly changing world.


Read more here: 

The Equality in Forensics News Brief is brought to you by Lindsey Zhao and the News Brief Team:

 

Interested in becoming a contributor? You can apply to join our staff team here.