Texas: Dithering federal judges asked to rule on Texas political maps | The Texas Tribune

Whether they meant to or not, the three federal judges overseeing the state’s redistricting litigation have already decided the maps are legal enough for three general elections. But they have never finally resolved all of the challenges initially made to Texas’ political maps back in May 2011, when lawyers who believe the maps are discriminatory and unfair went to court seeking a remedy. That’s what the courts are for, after all — to protect one party from harming another party. Or maybe that’s to protect one political party from harming another political party. The three-judge panel in charge of the case appears to be stuck; they have not acted since a hearing in 2014. And now that another election has passed, those lawyers ended 2016 with a new plea, asking the judges to wrap up their work by mid-month. In their filing last week, the lawyers wrote that they hope to get a ruling in time to finish this court fight before another federal census is done and another set of maps has been drawn by a Legislature that might have been elected using unfair political lines.

Georgia: State Democrats hope to prevent GOP from redistricting | 11alive

Georgia Democrats hoping to prevent Republicans from controlling the 2020 redistricting process have pre-filed legislation that would remove the power of reapportionment from the General Assembly. Instead, under a bill authored by state Sen. Pat Gardner of Atlanta, reapportionment would be handled by an independent bipartisan commission. Congressional and statewide House and Senate districts are redrawn every 10 years based on new U.S. Census numbers. The majority political party in the legislature controls the redistricting process, and Republicans have held large majorities under Georgia’s gold dome for more than a decade.

North Carolina: Justice Roberts Sets New Filing Deadline In North Carolina Racial Gerrymandering Case | TPM

Chief Justice John Roberts requested on Tuesday that a response be filed to an emergency request by North Carolina late last month that the 2017 special elections ordered by a federal court be put off as the case that prompted them — a major racial gerrymandering lawsuit — is appealed. The move Tuesday was a fairly minor procedural move by Roberts, who oversees the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals where North Carolina resides, but the emergency request suggests an attempt to put off special elections where Republicans risk losing seats with the redrawn districts. The state officials’ legal moves are also part of a series of last-ditch efforts by North Carolina Republicans to undermine incoming Democratic Gov. Roy Cooper.

Virginia: Court-imposed election map paved way for new Virginia congressmen | The Washington Post

When two new members of the Virginia congressional delegation are sworn in Tuesday, they can partially thank a panel of federal judges for their seats in Congress. The judges fiddled with the boundaries of the districts enough to allow a Democrat to win in Richmond and a new Republican to oust an incumbent in the Virginia Beach area. That means hello, Rep.-elects Donald McEachin (D) and Scott Taylor (R). Goodbye, seven-term congressman J. Randy Forbes (R). Their unexpected paths to victory — or early retirement — reveal the extent to which the nuances of an elections map can help determine winners and losers. The Virginia map changes started with a lawsuit filed by Democratic lawyer Marc E. Elias in 2013.

Wisconsin: Both sides optimistic about success in redistricting case | The Cap Times

Wisconsin’s 2011 state Assembly maps were ruled unconstitutional last November and the state is looking for a Supreme Court review of the case. Both sides are optimistic that district lines will fall in pleasant places for them. Two separate guests on the Sunday morning political talk show “Capital City Sunday,” expressed their confidence that the results would go their way. Wisconsin Attorney General Brad Schimel believes the Supreme Court will most likely take up the case and rule in the state’s favor, while Wisconsin Assembly Minority Leader Peter Barca sees the initial “unconstitutional” ruling as a source of hope for state Democrats. After a panel of three federal judges ruled that the maps made it more difficult for Democrats to “translate their votes into seats,” both parties in the case were required to submit a plan about how to rectify the gerrymandered district lines.

North Carolina: GOP legislative leaders ask US Supreme Court to halt 2017 elections | News & Observer

Attorneys for state leaders on Friday asked the U.S. Supreme Court to block elections ordered for 2017 after a federal court found 28 state Senate and House districts were illegal racial gerrymanders. The 39-page filing asks Chief Justice John Roberts for emergency intervention to put a halt to the three-judge panel’s order for redrawn districts by March and a special election in 2017. The petition asks for the chief justice to enter an order by Jan. 11, when the General Assembly is set to convene its next session. “On Election Day, millions of North Carolina voters went to the polls and selected the state legislators who would represent them in the General Assembly for two-year terms in accordance with the North Carolina Constitution. Or so they thought,” Paul Clement, a Washington-based attorney representing the state, stated in the petition signed by Thomas Farr, a Raleigh-based attorney who has represented the legislators on redistricting, Phil Strach, another Raleigh-based attorney, and Alexander McC. Peters of the state attorney general’s office.

Texas: Plaintiffs in redistricting case ask federal district court to rule | Dallas Morning News

Plaintiffs in an ongoing court battle over Texas’ 2011 district maps have filed a joint motion calling for the federal judges considering the case to issue a ruling by next month. The plaintiffs — including the Mexican American Legislative Caucus, the Texas Latino Redistricting Task Force and the League of United Latin American Citizens — sued the state in 2011, claiming the maps adopted for state House, Senate and Texas congressional districts were unconstitutional and harm minority voters.

Editorials: North Carolina’s HB2 impasse has its roots in gerrymandering | Bob Phillips/News & Observer

When state lawmakers couldn’t come together to repeal House Bill 2, it was just another sorry reminder of the toxic partisan divide that often renders the N.C. General Assembly dysfunctional. Compromise, trust and honest brokering seem to be out of reach for this body of elected officials that arguably has more impact on our lives than any other level of government. So what happened and why? The inability to repeal HB2 is a symptom of what is a grave threat to our democracy: partisan gerrymandering. When the majority party, whether it’s Democrats or Republicans, gets to draw its own districts for its own advantage, our whole elective system becomes unfair. The proof is in the legislative maps – illogically shaped districts creating a jigsaw puzzle covering our state, making lawmakers virtually unaccountable to voters. Consider our incoming legislature that will be sworn in this January. More than 90 percent of them ran uncontested in November or won their election by a comfortable double-digit margin. Largely because of gerrymandering, citizens have no choice and no voice in our elections.

Alabama: Suit over 2012 redistricting still unresolved | Associated Press

Over a year-and-a-half ago, the nation’s high court said Senate Minority Leader Quinton Ross’ Montgomery district might have to be redrawn. Ross, along with other legislators, is still waiting for a final decision. “There hasn’t been a final decision made, but we’re hopeful they’ll decide on a remedy for the issue,” Ross, a Democrat, said in a recent interview. The case — which could affect other districts and shake up the 2018 elections for the Alabama Legislature — remains in the hands of a three-judge panel. “We didn’t expect it to take this long,” said James Blacksher, an attorney for the plaintiffs, in a recent interview. “We don’t know why it has taken so long. Hopefully, we’ll have a decision soon.” The Republican-controlled Legislature passed new legislative district maps in 2012 after a contentious special session, using a strict standard not allowing House and Senate districts to go above or below 1 percent of their ideal population. Many GOP-controlled legislatures in the South used a similarly strict standard, which tended to separate black and white voters.

Wisconsin: Plaintiffs in Wisconsin redistricting lawsuit lay out plan for new maps | The Capital Times

Plaintiffs in Wisconsin’s legislative redistricting lawsuit are asking a federal court to throw out the state’s Assembly map and implement a timeline for creating a new one ahead of the 2018 and 2020 legislative elections. The plaintiffs and Attorney General Brad Schimel, representing the state, filed new briefs in federal court Wednesday following a decision by a panel of judges last month ruling Wisconsin’s map an unconstitutional gerrymander. Judges asked both parties to submit more briefs with proposals for what to do about the map. Schimel is asking the court to keep the map in place for now and wait until the U.S. Supreme Court makes a ruling on the issue. If it decides the map needs to be replaced, it should direct the Legislature redraw it to comply with its ruling, according to his brief. “The Legislature, the Court, and the parties should not expend resources drawing and debating a plan that is merely a placeholder until the Supreme Court rules on the issue,” Schimel wrote. In their brief, the plaintiffs argue that the judges’ November ruling means that the process for creating new maps should begin immediately and the current map should be eliminated.

National: U.S. Supreme Court Appears Concerned About Racial Gerrymandering | Governing

A Supreme Court majority on Monday appeared to lean in favor of Democrats in Virginia and North Carolina seeking to rein in what they call racial gerrymandering by Republican-controlled legislatures in those states. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, who is likely to hold the deciding vote, said he was troubled that Republican leaders drew new election maps by moving more black voters into districts that already had a majority of African-American residents and usually favored black candidates. “I have problems with that,” Kennedy said, suggesting he would question such districts if the “tipping point, the principal motivating factor was race.” If the court’s majority agrees, the ruling would put states, counties and cities on notice that they may not concentrate more black and Latino voters into districts that already routinely elect minority representatives.

National: Supreme Court appears in favor of ruling against racial gerrymandering in GOP-controlled states | Baltimore Sun

A Supreme Court majority on Monday appeared to lean in favor of Democrats in Virginia and North Carolina seeking to rein in what they call racial gerrymandering by Republican-controlled legislatures in those states. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, who is likely to hold the deciding vote, said he was troubled that Republican leaders drew new election maps by moving more black voters into districts that already had a majority of African American residents and usually favored black candidates. Civil rights lawyers and Democrats have contended these “packed” districts have the effect of diluting or weakening the political power of black and Latino voters in other districts and statewide. “I have problems with that,” Kennedy said, suggesting he would question such districts if the “tipping point, the principal motivating factor was race.”

National: The Supreme Court Tackles The Political Riddle Of Race-Based Gerrymandering | FiveThirtyEight

Every 10 years, after the census is complete, legislators in statehouses across the country embark on a time-honored tradition: remapping the boundaries of their states’ voting districts, usually to the benefit of the people doing the remapping. Gerrymandering, the practice of painstakingly engineering districts to bestow an advantage on the politicians in control of the process, has been baked into the American political process since the 18th century — and legal challenges to the weird-looking maps that result have their own long history, too. But not all gerrymanders are created equal, at least from a legal perspective. On Monday, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in two gerrymandering cases, in which the plaintiffs claim that after the 2010 census, Republican legislators in North Carolina and both parties in Virginia deliberately packed black voters into a small number of congressional and state legislative districts. The plaintiffs in the two cases, McCrory v. Harris (North Carolina) and Bethune-Hill v. Virginia State Board of Elections (Virginia), claim that by concentrating black voters in a few districts in an effort to protect their majorities, legislators unfairly diluted black voters’ influence. The legislators, on the other hand, say they are merely complying with the Voting Rights Act, which requires states to create districts where minority voters can select their preferred candidate. The question at the heart of these cases is a political riddle: How much mandated racial gerrymandering is too much racial gerrymandering?

National: Supreme Court hears cases about use of race in redistricting | Associated Press

The Supreme Court is returning to the familiar intersection of race and politics, in a pair of cases examining redistricting in North Carolina and Virginia. The eight-justice court is hearing arguments Monday in two cases that deal with the same basic issue of whether race played too large a role in the drawing of electoral districts, to the detriment of African-Americans. The claim made by black voters in both states is that Republicans packed districts with more reliably Democratic black voters than necessary to elect their preferred candidates, making neighboring districts whiter and more Republican. A lower court agreed with the challengers in North Carolina that two majority-black congressional districts were unconstitutional because their maps relied too heavily on race. The state appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing in part that it made districting decisions based on partisan politics, not race.

California: California just proved how cracking down on gerrymandering isn’t all it’s cracked up to be | The Washington Post

On Monday, California Republican Rep. Darrell Issa was declared the winner of a drawn-out reelection battle. And with his victory, California regained a distinction with which it is quite familiar. For the fourth time in 12 years, not a single one of the state’s 50-plus congressional districts switched parties. Just as in 2010, 2008 and 2004, every single seat returned to the party that previously controlled it. And if you exclude the post-redistricting election of 2012, only two California districts have flipped parties since 2004. That’s two out of 314 individual races — 0.6 percent. (And one of the two was a fluke in which the GOP briefly held a blue-leaning seat thanks to two Republicans advancing to the general election in 2012.) So why do we bring this up now? Well, partly because it wasn’t necessarily supposed to be this way again. Before the last round of redistricting, Californians voted for a redistricting commission to take the process out of lawmakers’ hands.

North Carolina: State Ordered to Hold Special Elections After Redrawing Districts | Governing

A federal court Tuesday ordered North Carolina to hold a special legislative election next year after 28 state House and Senate districts are redrawn to comply with a gerrymandering ruling. U.S. District Court judges earlier this year threw out the current legislative district map, ruling that 28 of them were unconstitutional racial gerrymanders. They allowed the 2016 election to continue under the old maps, but ordered legislators to draw new districts in 2017. Tuesday’s order settled the question of whether the new districts would take effect for the regularly scheduled 2018 election cycle, or if a special election would be required. “While special elections have costs, those costs pale in comparison to the injury caused by allowing citizens to continue to be represented by legislators elected pursuant to a racial gerrymander,” the three-judge panel wrote in the order.

North Carolina: Congressional redistricting case to be heard at Supreme Court on Monday | Miami Herald

Lawyers for the state of North Carolina will make oral arguments in the Supreme Court next week, seeking to overturn a lower federal court’s ruling that two of the state’s congressional districts were illegally and intentionally drawn to weaken African-American and minority voting power. It’s expected the high court could hand down a decision in the case next spring or summer. That process, though, could be delayed if the current eight justices opt to have both sides re-argue the case next year, should a ninth justice be confirmed and join the bench. The Supreme Court’s decision in the redistricting case – stemming from a legal challenge to congressional district maps drawn in 2011 by state lawmakers – could have significant political impact, though North Carolina already has redrawn the contested maps and the state used the newly approved districts in this year’s election. Earlier this year, a panel of three federal judges forced North Carolina to postpone congressional primaries and re-do the maps.

Ohio: Redistricting reform could reduce blowouts in Ohio elections | The Columbus Dispatch

Nearly every legislative and congressional election in Ohio this month had one thing in common: They were blowouts. It didn’t matter whether the winner was a Democrat or Republican, the story was the same. “I was certainly surprised by the margins,” said Rep. Scott Ryan, R-Newark, vice chairman of the Ohio House Republican Organizational Committee. “In many districts where the typical mix would be more 50-50, the races still weren’t close. That was very surprising to me.” But Secretary of State Jon Husted couldn’t muster any surprise. The partisan gerrymandering process that allowed Republicans to draw legislative and congressional seats in their favor continues to provide most general-election voters with no real option at the ballot, he said.

Wisconsin: Court rules GOP gerrymandering violates Democrats’ rights | The Guardian

District judges have struck a blow against the practice of gerrymandering – the deliberate manipulation of voting boundaries to favour one party over another – in a ruling that could reverberate across the US. A court in Wisconsin said on Monday that state assembly voting districts drawn up by Republicans five years ago are unconstitutional and violate the rights of Democrats. The ruling has no bearing on the 2016 presidential election, in which Donald Trump scored a surprise victory over Hillary Clinton in Wisconsin, taking its 10 electoral college votes, but could lead to a precedent that will affect future US House races. “I feel enormous excitement about what this potentially might mean for American democracy,” said Nicholas Stephanopoulos, a professor at the University of Chicago law school, who argued the case in court. “One of the worst aspects of our democracy has been the presence of partisan gerrymandering.” This is the first time in 30 years that a court has taken a stand against it, Stephanopoulos added. “If the supreme court upholds this decision, there could be very positive and dramatic consequences in states all over the country where gerrymandering has happened.”

Editorials: The good news on voting and democracy | Joshua A. Douglas/USA Today

All politics is local, as the saying goes, and the same is true of election law. Although the U.S. Constitution protects the right to vote, local laws can expand its scope and influence democratic representation. Voters across the country are making choices this fall that will not only affect state and local elections, they will also serve as the catalysts for nationwide reforms. Maine voters, for instance, will decide whether to adopt ranked choice voting, a system in which people select their first, second, and third choices for each office. This reform would make it easier for third parties to gain support and would provide a better sense of the electorate’s overall preferences. In Missouri, voters are considering whether to amend the state constitution to allow a photo ID requirement for voting. In 2006, the Missouri Supreme Court ruled that the prior voter ID law violated the state constitution, so to enact voter ID law in Missouri the voters must change the state constitution.

North Carolina: Drawing the line on the most gerrymandered district in America | The Guardian

On the outskirts of Charlotte, it’s the last day of early voting for the congressional race in North Carolina’s 12th district at the Mountain Island library, and there are no lines for the polling stations. Instead, volunteers outnumbered the voters. It was early voting time, but not for a race nearly as high-profile as the presidential election. Only 266 people turned out in June to the polls to pick the district’s next member of Congress. After the election, once all the votes were tallied, only 7% of more than 500,000 registered voters cast ballots. “Turnout was very, very low,” said Carol Johnson, a poll worker and an employee for the city of Charlotte. “Maybe people didn’t know. Maybe they weren’t interested.” Or maybe people have grown disenfranchised after living in what has long been considered the most gerrymandered district in the United States. Twenty-five years ago, North Carolina lawmakers drew the 12th district, creating the second majority-minority district in a state with a dark history of denying black residents their voting rights. That line-drawing is what is known as gerrymandering, or manipulating the boundaries of electoral districts to favor a particular result.

National: Obama, Holder to lead post-Trump redistricting campaign | Politico

As Democrats aim to capitalize on this year’s Republican turmoil and start building back their own decimated bench, former Attorney General Eric Holder will chair a new umbrella group focused on redistricting reform — with the aim of taking on the gerrymandering that’s left the party behind in statehouses and made winning a House majority far more difficult. The new group, called the National Democratic Redistricting Committee, was developed in close consultation with the White House. President Barack Obama himself has now identified the group — which will coordinate campaign strategy, direct fundraising, organize ballot initiatives and put together legal challenges to state redistricting maps — as the main focus of his political activity once he leaves office. Though initial plans to be active in this year’s elections fell short, the group has been incorporated as a 527, with Democratic Governors Association executive director Elisabeth Pearson as its president and House Majority PAC executive director Ali Lapp as its vice president. They’ve been pitching donors and aiming to put together its first phase action plan for December, moving first in the Virginia and New Jersey state elections next year and with an eye toward coordination across gubernatorial, state legislative and House races going into the 2018 midterms.

Editorials: We Must Address Gerrymandering | Thomas E. Mann/TIME

The United States is an outlier in the democratic world in the extent to which politicians shape the rules that affect their own electoral fortunes. Federal campaign finance policy is administered by a feckless Federal Election Commission, whose three Democratic and three Republican commissioners routinely produce gridlock instead of effective implementation of the law. The conditions under which election ballots are cast and counted—from registration to voting equipment, ballot design, polling locations, voter ID requirements, absentee ballots and early voting—are set in a very decentralized fashion and prey to political manipulation to advantage one party over the other. And while most countries with single-member districts (such as Canada, Britain and Australia) use nonpartisan boundary commissions to redraw lines so they reflect population shifts, in America, most state legislatures create the maps for both congressional and state legislative districts through the regular legislative process. They make their own luck.

South Dakota: After failing in Pierre, redistricting forces turn to ballot | Associated Press

After years of trying to get South Dakota legislators to surrender control of redistricting to an independent commission, supporters of the idea are trying to do it instead through a constitutional amendment. Backers say the measure before voters this November would eliminate lawmakers’ conflict of interest and make people feel elections are fair to all parties. “It’s time for fair representation. Period,” said Democratic Rep. Peggy Gibson, who has backed at least nine independent redistricting measures since 2009. “I’m not saying it’ll be perfect, but I’m certainly thinking it will be better than the method that we have now.” Opponents — including majority Republicans — say the current system is working fine. “The idea, I think, is to elect people that are more in line with liberal ideas as far as spending money and a whole host of issues,” said GOP Rep. Jim Bolin, who served on the commission that oversaw the last redistricting plan in 2011.

Illinois: State Supreme Court rejects new hearing for redistricting amendment | Chicago Tribune

The Illinois Supreme Court has rejected a request to reconsider its split decision that removed from the Nov. 8 ballot a proposed state constitutional amendment aimed at removing much of the politics from the redrawing of state legislative district boundaries. Without comment, the high court’s 4-3 Democratic majority reaffirmed its decision that the proposed amendment was unconstitutional because it did not conform to the narrow legal window for petition-driven citizen initiatives to appear before voters. Republican Gov. Bruce Rauner, who backed the proposal, said Tuesday that the decision was “not unexpected.” He urged lawmakers this fall to move on their own to put before voters a pair of proposed amendments he has adopted as part of his “turnaround agenda.”

United Kingdom: MPs face uncertain future under new boundary proposals | Reuters

Dozens of British MPs face uncertain futures under proposals by an independent commission charged with cutting the number of parliamentary seats. The Boundary Commission for England unveiled its proposals on Tuesday to meet parliament’s decision to cut the number of constituencies, or voting areas, to 600 from 650 in Britain to make sure the number of voters in each region is similar. Opposition Labour MPs say they will oppose the changes, arguing they disproportionately affect the left-leaning party.The proposals are not final: they will be debated by the public before being presented to parliament in 2018. They are aimed at creating constituencies of 71,000 to 78,500 voters, compared with a current range between 55,000 and 95,000.

Illinois: Quinn’s redistricting reform has own legal issues | Chicago Tribune

Former Gov. Pat Quinn thinks he knows how to get a redistricting ballot question past the Illinois Supreme Court. The Democrat, who lost his 2014 re-election bid to Republican Bruce Rauner, has been on a bit of a petition drive since becoming a private citizen. Until Tuesday, his focus had been local — he spent the summer soliciting Chicagoans for signatures to get mayoral term limits on a future ballot. Last week’s state Supreme Court decision to keep the Independent Maps group’s redistricting question off the Nov. 8 ballot created an opening for Quinn to again remind people that he led the only successful citizen-driven petition to change the state constitution — in 1980.

Texas: State Will Hold Another Election Without a Ruling on Redistricting | KUT

A legal battle over some of the state’s political districts still isn’t over. About half a decade ago, a group of Texas voters sued the state claiming the legislature’s 2011 redistricting maps discriminated against minorities. About two years ago, there was a trial, but since then nothing has happened. There are a lot of reasons for Texas’ political districts have been the subject of contention for a while. For one, some voting advocates say the state is divided in really partisan ways, and it’s made people less interested in voting here, says Grace Shimane with the League of Women Voters of Texas. “There is not as much competition in Texas as there are in other places,” Shimane explains. “And there isn’t much competition in races sometimes because of the way that the maps have been configured. It makes it so people are as though ‘What’s the point? My person never wins, I’m not going to try.’”

North Carolina: Experiment shows ‘better way’ for voting districts | The Charlotte Observer

Retired state judges and justices who experimented with drawing the state’s congressional districts without regard to voters’ party registration have produced a plan that creates a few districts where candidates of either party would have a chance to win. The redistricting simulation, a project of Duke University and Common Cause North Carolina, aims to show one way the state’s 13 congressional districts could look if drawn without political considerations. It includes six likely Republican districts, four likely Democratic districts, and three toss-ups, the sponsors said. The experiment produced results strikingly different from the districts legislators approved this year. Legislative Republicans drew the existing congressional map to elect 10 Republicans and 3 Democrats. No district is considered competitive. Common Cause is suing over the current congressional map, claiming that extreme partisan gerrymandering violates the Constitution.

Illinois: Redistricting referendum won’t appear on ballot | Associated Press

A divided Illinois Supreme Court narrowly ruled Thursday that a voter referendum seeking to change how Illinois draws political boundaries is unconstitutional, making it ineligible to appear on the November ballot. The high court, in a 4-3 decision, affirmed the ruling by a Cook County judge who determined the ballot initiative seeking to give legislative mapmaking power to an independent commission instead of lawmakers didn’t meet constitutional muster. It’s the second failed attempt to overhaul redistricting by petition in two years. The ruling in the high-stakes case – falling the day before an election deadline to certify fall ballots – had the potential to alter Illinois’ political power dynamic, where elected officials in the Democratic-leaning state run the once-a-decade process. But in a 63-page ruling the majority justices said the measure didn’t meet narrow constitutional requirements.