Redistricting, and in particular, the ways in which federal law and jurisprudence govern redistricting, can be a complicated and nuanced thing. Unfortunately, political debates, particularly these days, are not known for their thoroughness and nuance.

Which is why it was disappointing when so much of the reaction to a federal court finding North Dakota's legislative map was illegal under the Voting Rights Act was born of rote partisanship and odious ideological bomb throwing. What the judge ruled in an opinion that is currently being appealed is that while North Dakota lawmakers made an effort to draw a map that was more beneficial for Native American communities, they didn't go far enough.

Co-host Chad Oban and I discussed it on this episode of Plain Talk.

We also discussed:

• The debate over a ballot measure to eliminate property taxes. Can the campaign get the signatures? Is yoking that effort to unrelated political causes, such as opposition to vaccines, a good idea?
• A 2019 law which exempted lawmaker emails with state officials from open records requests. That has hindered media inquiries into the situation around former Sen. Ray Holmberg, who is charged with federal crimes related to sexual misconduct with children. Should the law be changed?
• A new federal political action committee which will be asking North Dakota elected officials to sign a pledge. A similar group in Idaho punished lawmakers who wouldn't by funding primary challenges against them. Should North Dakota's leaders be signing these pledges? Is there any pledge they make more important than the one to their constituents?

If you want to subscribe to Plain Talk, search for the show wherever you get your podcasts, or click here for more information.