Editorials: Republicans should accept redistricting defeat and drop talk of appeals | The Tampa Tribune

For a brief moment last week it appeared the Florida Legislature had come to its senses and was willing to accept a judge’s ruling on the boundaries for new state Senate districts. But that proved to be nothing more than wishful thinking. After indicating there would be no appeal, the Republicans behind the failed Senate redistricting maps say they are considering a number of avenues to appeal. That would surely add to the $8 million in legal fees the Legislature has wasted over several years trying to gain approval of the flawed maps it produced. For the sake of the taxpayers, if nothing else, legislative leaders should end the redistricting battle and begin implementing the Senate map Circuit Judge George Reynolds approved last week. Not only would it save tax dollars and end years of chaos, it would mean the state will finally have Senate districts that adhere to the Fair District amendments voters passed in 2010.

Colorado: Minority Groups Knock Redistricting Ballot Measure | Colorado Public Radio

A proposed ballot measure that would change the way Colorado’s political maps are drawn is being criticized by some minority groups and lawmakers. Currently, the state Legislature determines Colorado’s congressional districts after each census. The ballot measure would shift that responsibility to a 12-member independent commission made up of four Democrats, four Republicans and four unaffiliated members. A new map would be approved when eight members reach an agreement.

Florida: Judge approves voting rights’ groups map of Senate districts | Tampa Bay Times

A state judge on Wednesday approved an entirely new map of Florida’s 40 Senate districts that was recommended by a coalition of voting rights groups. The decision is yet another political and legal setback for the Republican-controlled Legislature and adds much more political uncertainty with the next session less than two weeks away and at the dawn of a presidential election year. “This is another great result for our clients but also a great result for every voter in the state of Florida,” said David King, the lead attorney for the plaintiffs. King said voters will elect senators and members of Congress from constitutional districts in the 2016 election, and added: “I’m confident that there are a substantial number of more competitive districts in this map.” The Senate had no immediate comment on Circuit Judge George Reynolds’ order, in which he accepted a map recommended by the League of Women Voters, Common Cause and other plaintiffs. Reynolds’ 73-page ruling orders the Senate to randomly assign district numbers to all 40 districts within three days of a final judgment being entered.

Editorials: Supreme Court Grapples, Once Again, With Redistricting | Michael Barone/Rasmussen Reports

Fifty-one years ago the Supreme Court handed down its one-person-one-vote decision, requiring that within each state congressional and legislative districts must have equal populations. That gave redistricters a relatively easy standard to meet. Census data provides block-by-block population counts every 10 years, and it’s possible now to draw lines for districts so that their populations are identical or vary by just one person. But redistricting cases keep making their way to the Court nonetheless. One reason is that the Voting Rights Act amendments of the 1980s have been interpreted as requiring the creation of a maximum number of districts with majorities or near-majorities of black or Hispanic residents. This has produced many grotesquely shaped constituencies and much litigation.

Florida: Rep. Corrine Brown files new challenge to Congressional district changes | Miami Herald

Arguing that an east-west configuration for her district “combines far-flung communities worlds apart culturally and geographically,” lawyers for U.S. Rep. Corrine Brown asked a federal judge Tuesday to void Florida’s latest congressional redistricting plan. The complaint marks the next phase of a legal battle over the state’s political boundaries that has raged for nearly four years. The first two drafts of a congressional plan — approved by the Legislature in 2012 and tweaked in 2014 — were thrown out by state courts for violating a voter-approved ban on political gerrymandering. But the reorientation of Brown’s congressional district, which has long ambled from Jacksonville to Orlando but now would run from Jacksonville in the east to Gadsden County in the west, prompted the Democratic congresswoman to file suit this year against the change. After the Florida Supreme Court officially approved the new district early this month, Brown was allowed to update her case Tuesda

Ohio: End gerrymandering, Kasich says | The Columbus Dispatch

Gov. John Kasich says he wants to change the way Ohio draws congressional districts, but other supporters of the idea say it will take a change of heart by Ohio’s federal lawmakers to make it happen. Ohio’s congressional districts are currently drawn by the legislature, which can gerrymander districts to favor the party that controls the chambers. The process has led to a number of districts that make little geographic sense, allow for few competitive races and have given Republicans 12 of 16 seats. “I support redistricting reform dramatically,” Kasich said last week. “This will be something I’m going to do whether I’m elected president or whether I’m here. We carve these safe districts, and then when you’re in a safe district you have to watch your extremes, and you keep moving to the extremes.”

Florida: Supervisors want new Florida Senate districts by mid-March | Tampa Bay Business Journal

As a Leon County circuit judge ponders plans for redrawing Senate districts, the state’s elections supervisors said in a court document Wednesday that they would like the map to be finalized by March 15. The Florida State Association of Supervisors of Elections said local officials need time before candidate qualifying in June and primary elections in August to take steps such as remapping counties to establish new district lines, creating new precincts and establishing polling places.

Editorials: One (mostly white, older) person, one vote | William H. Frey/The Washington Post

This month in Evenwel v. Abbott, the Supreme Court heard arguments for altering the long-standing principle of “one person, one vote” by substituting voting-age citizens for total population when drawing legislative districts within states. While much has been said about the implications of eliminating noncitizens from the population on which district lines are based, a ruling in favor of the plaintiffs in this case could have an even larger impact: shortchanging the interests of minority children and their families. That’s because nearly half of the nation’s under-18 population is made up of racial minorities, while 70 percent of voting-age citizens are white. The United States is undergoing a boom in demographic diversity, but it’s the younger population that’s being transformed first. Removing the racially diverse youth population from the apportionment calculation would intensify a divisive cultural generation gap that pervades politics and public attitudes in this country. Pew Research polling has shown that the mostly white older population is far less accepting of immigrant minorities and government support for social programs than is the increasingly minority younger population. The rise of immigrant-bashing presidential candidate Donald Trump as a hero among older white Republican primary voters represents an extreme version of the pushback against a demographically changing country.

Florida: Elections supervisors to court: Decide Senate redistricting by March 15, please | Florida Politics

Florida’s election supervisors are asking the courts to resolve the state Senate redistricting saga by March 15 to protect the “quality and integrity of the (voting) process.” The Florida State Association of Supervisors of Elections filed its notice Wednesday with Circuit Judge George Reynolds, who is in the process of deciding how to redraw the state’s 40 senatorial districts. Reynolds, who sits in Tallahassee, held a trial on the matter last week. His recommendation goes to the Florida Supreme Court, which has the final say on a new map. With Florida’s primary election on Aug. 30, the supervisors need lead time “to remap and re-precinct their counties following approval of new Florida Senate districts by this Court.” Absentee ballots must go out 45 days before the primary, and new polling locations will have to determined.

Colorado: Redistricting reform effort splits Democrats | The Durango Herald

A proposed ballot question that would change congressional redistricting in Colorado is being rewritten to address concerns raised by black and Latino voters. The bipartisan proposal has caused a bit of a rift within the Colorado Democratic Party, with black and Latino Democrats at odds with certain white Democrats over the effort. “There were, I’m sorry, a bunch of white guys sitting around the table deciding our politics on redistricting moving forward,” said state Rep. Angela Williams, D-Denver, chairwoman of the Colorado Black Caucus.

Illinois: Proposal to use independent redistricting commission brings cheers, jeers | Rockford Register Star

To proponents taking their third shot in five years at getting a constitutional amendment on the ballot that would change the way Illinois legislative districts are drawn, their proposal can be the fix that makes all the other fixes to state government possible.
An independent commission crafting legislative districts would create more competitive races, making legislators in Springfield truly responsive to voters and more likely to tackle the state’s long-unmet needs, reformers with the Independent Map Amendment coalition argue. Opponents, however, see this attempt as one that would remove accountability from the process, disadvantage minorities and tamper with a system that isn’t necessarily broken. The idea of an independent body redrawing the boundaries of districts isn’t new. But only a few examples across the country show voters what might occur if a constitutional amendment makes it onto the ballot and is passed by Illinois voters.

New Jersey: With Trepidation on All Sides, Redistricting Bill Passes Committee | PolitickerNJ

Over the objections of Republican members and with the reservations of several Senate Democrats, a bill to change New Jersey’s redistricting process passed the Senate Judiciary Committee Monday. The bill would introduce a constitutional amendment to make redistricting occur based on averaged polling data from statewide elections, rather than by population changes recorded during the national census. Though the bill would mandate that 10 of New Jersey’s districts be competitive at all times, critics say it would favor Democrats and permanently tip the scales in their favor. Senate Republican Leader Tom Kean (R-21) reiterated objections first raised by Assemblywoman Holly Schepisi (R-39) during the Assembly’s hearing on the bill last week, saying that the Democratic sponsors had rushed the bill into committee without adequate notice and with a view to force it through with two two-thirds votes rather than one three-fifths vote before the end of lame duck.

North Carolina: Court affirms district lines | Associated Press

North Carolina’s highest court on Friday again upheld maps drawn by Republicans for General Assembly and congressional districts, months after the U.S. Supreme Court told state judges to review boundaries through the lens of its Alabama redistricting decision. A majority on the state Supreme Court reaffirmed its December 2014 decision upholding the boundaries, finding that they still withstood the scrutiny of federal and state constitutional and redistricting guidelines. This latest legal inspection also included the U.S. Supreme Court’s majority opinion in March that Alabama lawmakers had relied too much on “mechanical” numerical percentages while drawing legislative districts in which blacks comprised a majority of the population. The federal justices threw out the first North Carolina Supreme Court ruling and told the state court to try again.

Florida: Senate redistricting trial ends as judge weighs options | Miami Herald

After eight rulings by the Florida Supreme Court and an admission of guilt by legislators, the Senate redistricting trial ended Thursday with a Tallahassee judge asking the parties to tell him their top choices for a new Senate map. Leon County Circuit Court Judge George Reynolds now must decide whether to accept one of four proposals offered by the challengers — a coalition of the League of Women Voters, Common Cause of Florida and a group of Democrat-leaning individuals — or a map drawn by Senate staff but never voted on by the Legislature. The challengers said Reynolds should pick one of two maps that create four Hispanic-majority districts in Miami-Dade County, boosting the number of Hispanic-dominated seats from three and opening the door to a Hispanic district dominated by Democrats.

Wisconsin: Federal judges leave open challenge to state redistricting | Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

In a case that could establish a new standard for how courts decide when partisan legislative redistricting crosses the line of constitutionality cleared a major hurdle Thursday. A federal court allowed a lawsuit to proceed that claims that Republican-drawn legislative district maps are unconstitutional. Democrats filed the suit in July, saying the 2012 redistricting plan drawn after the 2010 census so favored Republicans that it violated the civil rights of Democratic voters. Though the plan was crafted by private attorneys and consultants hired by Republican lawmakers, the suit names as defendants the Government Accountability Board, and its executive director, because the board administered elections in the state. The defendants said the issue of partisan gerrymandering is a political one, and the suit should be dismissed because there’s no clear standard for a court to decide the claim.

Colorado: Proposal to change how district maps are drawn met with sharp criticism | The Colorado Statesman

A high-profile bipartisan group of former lawmakers and state officials are reworking and resubmitting a ballot initiative that would transform the process through which voting districts are drawn in Colorado. The news comes after the project was unveiled last month with a splash, drawing approval from newspaper editorial boards but sharp criticism on the left — mainly from champions of ethnic minority communities who argue the new plan would unconstitutionally tamp down gains in electoral power made by the communities in recent decades. James Mejia, spokesman for the proposal, said the rollout hasn’t been pretty, but that it was likely never going to be very pretty. “Hey, my compliments to the people have been involved in this and pushing it forward, really,” he said. The proposal was submitted Nov. 17 and labeled Initiative 55 by the Legislative Council.

Florida: Senate rests case in redistricting trial | News Service of Florida

The Florida Senate rested its case in support of a proposed map during the second day of a redistricting trial Tuesday, as lawyers for voting-rights organizations prepared to grill the chief map-drawer for the chamber. The main witness Tuesday was University of Utah political-science professor Baodong Liu, who questioned whether plans offered by the League of Women Voters of Florida and Common Cause Florida would offer Hispanic and African-American voters a chance to elect candidates of their choice in some districts. That requirement is part of the anti-gerrymandering “Fair Districts” amendments, which voters added to the state Constitution in 2010. An original Senate map, approved by lawmakers in 2012, has been set aside under an agreement between the voting-rights groups and the Legislature that acknowledged it would likely be struck down by the courts.

National: Voter equality: The Supreme Court seems suddenly worried about partisan gerrymandering | The Economist

On December 8th, the Supreme Court heard back to back arguments in cases involving the idea that everyone’s vote should bear roughly equal weight—the so-called “one person, one vote” principle that was developed in a series of cases in the 1960s. Evenwel v Abbott, a challenge to the calculus Texas uses to work out population, makes an appearance in this week’s paper. Harris v Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, which poses a similarly fraught question about district map-drawing, was argued one hour prior to Evenwel. Harris re-ignites a debate most court watchers thought was long settled: whether and to what extent America’s constitution permits partisan considerations to factor into the drawing of electoral maps. Until last week, the justices looked askance only at racial gerrymandering. Now at least a few Supremes seem to be entertaining the idea that there may be sharp limits on partisan political considerations as well, at least where voter equality is at stake.

Editorials: Republicans’ coup de grace on voting rights? | Scott Lemieux/The Week

Last week the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case called Evenwel v. Abbott. The case involves an issue of increasing importance to American politics: congressional districting. It got to the Supreme Court because conservative litigators with a successful track record of fighting against the right to vote are trying to turn the logic of pro-voter rights decisions on their head. And it’s very possible that they may succeed again. This most recent battle in the voting rights war involves two of the Warren Court’s most important decisions. One of the tactics that state legislatures used to disenfranchise African-Americans was to draw district lines (or refuse to revise them) in ways that left minority voters massively underrepresented. In Alabama in 1964, for example, some counties included 40 times more people than others. In Baker v. Carr and Reynolds v. Sims, the Supreme Court held that such schemes were illegal. States were required to adhere to a “one person, one vote” standard when apportioning their legislatures. Combined with robust enforcement of the Voting Rights Act, these landmark cases helped to end Jim Crow disenfranchisement schemes.

Florida: Political futures in balance as Senate redistricting trial begins | Orlando Sentinel

A trial that will decide the fate of Florida’s 40 state Senate districts and shape the political future of the state began Monday in Leon County circuit court under a pressing deadline to have the districts in place for the 2016 elections. The trial is only expected to last a week but the case will also be reviewed by the Florida Supreme Court. An attorney for the Florida State Association of Supervisors of Elections said Senate maps need to be in place by “mid-March” to allow time for supervisors of elections to conform the new districts to ballots for each precinct ahead of primary elections in August. In opening statements, lawyers for the League of Women Voters and Common Cause, the voting rights groups challenging the Republican-controlled Legislature’s maps, said they’ll show that lawmakers rigged the process again, just as they did with congressional districts, to favor the GOP. “This is simply business as usual in the Legislature,” said League of Women Voters attorney David King.

Virginia: Judge suggests conditional ruling on congressional districts | Richmond Times-Dispatch

A three-judge federal panel in Richmond might choose a fix for the constitutionally flawed 3rd Congressional District, but condition its imposition of a new map on a later ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court. U.S. District Judge Robert E. Payne suggested that course of action Monday as he, U.S. District Judge Liam O’Grady and Judge Albert Diaz of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals presided over a hearing in Virginia’s congressional redistricting case. “Would there be any difficulty in drafting a plan, but making it contingent on affirmation” by the U.S. Supreme Court, Payne asked during the hearing.
That might enable the Supreme Court to consider the panel’s initial finding, throwing out the current map, and the proposed remedy at the same time, Payne said.

Florida: Trial on Senate redistricting plan opens | Palm Beach Post

The latest battle in a four-year war over redistricting in Florida is poised to begin Monday in a Leon County courtroom, with Republican dominance in the state Senate possibly hanging in the balance. Palm Beach County’s four senators — three Democrats and a Republican — would see the area they represent changed significantly under district boundaries floated by a voters’ coalition, which has clashed steadily with the GOP-led Legislature. The proposed maps could even lead to two senators, Joe Abruzzo, D-Wellington, and Maria Sachs, D-Delray Beach, running against each other in a redrawn county district that stretches into Broward County. By contrast, a map submitted by the Senate would prove less disruptive to the county.

National: In Redistricting, Somebody Will Be Slighted | The Texas Tribune

Some people think it’s unfair to have more eligible voters in one legislative district than in another — that basing things solely on total population is the wrong way to draw political maps. But that’s only one way the lines might be seen to slight a particular group of Texans. The question stems from a lawsuit that went to the U.S. Supreme Court this week challenging the current maps for Texas Senate elections. The plaintiffs argue that those maps — drawn to put approximately the same number of people in every district — put them at a disadvantage by including unequal numbers of eligible voters in each district.

National: Will the Supreme Court Hand Republicans a Redistricting Revolution? | National Journal

The Su­preme Court on Tues­day will de­bate wheth­er to re­write the rules for le­gis­lat­ive re­dis­trict­ing—in a way that would fur­ther strengthen Re­pub­lic­ans’ dom­in­ance in state polit­ics. State le­gis­lat­ive dis­tricts are ap­por­tioned un­der the con­sti­tu­tion­al prin­ciple of “one per­son, one vote.” And, for dec­ades, states have taken that to mean that each dis­trict should con­tain roughly the same num­ber of people. But the chal­lengers in the case be­fore the high court Tues­day say that’s not the right in­ter­pret­a­tion. They say dis­tricts should be ap­por­tioned with equal num­bers of eli­gible voters, rather than total res­id­ents. If the chal­lengers suc­ceed, the case could ush­er in a re­dis­trict­ing re­volu­tion—and big gains for the GOP. Densely pop­u­lated urb­an areas tend to lean Demo­crat­ic, and also to con­tain more people who aren’t eli­gible or re­gistered to vote. If state le­gis­lat­ive dis­tricts were re­drawn to equal­ize the num­ber of eli­gible voters, rather than the num­ber of total res­id­ents, in­ner cit­ies’ polit­ic­al power would likely be di­luted in­to more con­ser­vat­ive sub­urbs.

Colorado: GOP, Democrats move closer on redistricting commission ballot question | The Denver Post

Republicans and Democrats appear to be moving closer to agreement on a proposed constitutional amendment about how the state’s congressional districts are drawn. The issue is whether it’s better to continue to allow the legislature to draw the maps — which often wind up in court — or create a bipartisan, independent commission. Since it was announced last month, the discussions have been slowed by long-held distrust between the parties and questions about ulterior motives and overemphasizing or diminishing minority voting strength.

Editorials: SCOTUS wrestles with redistricting cases | Josh Gerstein/Politico

The politically contentious topic of redistricting was front and center at the Supreme Court Tuesday, as the justices wrestled with a pair of cases challenging what factors states can and cannot consider as they draw lines. One case, out of Texas, looks at whether states should be required to take into account the number of voting-age citizens instead of or in addition to broader measures of population when setting up political boundaries. If the justices rule that the “one person, one vote” principle should be measured in part based on eligible voters, areas with high numbers of children or immigrants will likely see a loss of political power, while areas with fewer children and more U.S. citizens see a boost to their clout. Another case, out of Arizona, addresses whether political partisanship and concerns about qualifying for Justice Department approval under the Voting Rights Act are valid reasons to cause imbalances in the population of various districts.

Maryland: US Supreme Court revives Maryland redistricting challenge | Associated Press

The U.S. Supreme Court has revived a challenge by some Maryland residents to their state’s 2011 redrawing of its congressional districts, ruling unanimously Tuesday that the case was thrown out prematurely. The court said federal law requires that the Maryland case be heard by a panel of three judges, not the lone judge who dismissed the challenge. Writing in an eight-page opinion for the court, Justice Antonin Scalia said the law “could not be clearer.” The group of three residents originally sued in 2013 arguing that the new district map, which enabled Democrats to pick up an additional seat in Congress, was irrational and violated their First Amendment and other rights.

Editorials: Justices hard to read on Arizona redistricting plan | Amy Howe/SCOTUSblog

“Where’s the beef?” That was the question from Washington attorney Paul Smith, arguing at the Court today on behalf of the five-member independent commission charged with drawing new state legislative maps for Arizona. The Justices heard oral arguments in a challenge by several Arizona voters to the maps that the commission drew after the 2010 census; the voters allege that the commission violated the principle of “one person, one vote” when it intentionally put too many residents into Republican-leaning districts while putting too few into Democratic-leaning districts. The Court’s four more liberal Justices seemed inclined to agree with Smith, but some of the Court’s more conservative Justices were harder to read. Because a ruling in favor of the challengers could potentially affect redistricting maps around the country, both sides could be on tenterhooks waiting for the Court’s eventual decision.

Voting Blogs: Virginia’s Ongoing Struggle to Ensure Proportionate Minority Representation | State of Elections

As of 2014, African Americans made up just under 20% of Virginia’s total population. Yet, of the eleven congressmen and women elected from Virginia, incumbent Bobby Scott is currently the only African American representing the state, and only the second to be elected in the state’s entire history. This means that, while amounting to almost 20% of the total population, only 9% of Virginia’s seats in the House of Representatives are held by African Americans. Statistics improve slightly when looking at Virginia’s General Assembly. Of the one hundred members of the House of Delegates, thirteen representatives are African American (13%); of Virginia’s forty senators, five are African American (12.5%). Ultimately, a total 12.8% of the Virginia’s legislators are African American, falling about 6% below the total African American population in the state.

Editorials: Does “one person, one vote” yield to partisan politics or the Voting Rights Act? | Amy Howe/SCOTUSblog

In 2000, Arizona voters amended the state’s constitution to give authority over redistricting to a five-member independent commission. Taking that authority away from the state legislature was supposed to take the politics out of redistricting – a key factor in a case before the Supreme Court last Term, in which the Justices rejected a challenge to the commission’s power to draw federal congressional districts. But a lawsuit now before the Court brought by a group of Arizona voters alleges that the commission, while supposedly non-partisan, is actually anything but. During the redistricting that followed the 2010 census, Wesley Harris and his fellow challengers contend, the commission deliberately put too many voters in sixteen Republican districts while putting too few in eleven Democratic districts. This means, Harris argues, that the votes of residents in the overpopulated districts effectively count less than the votes of their counterparts in the underpopulated districts – a violation of the constitutional principle of “one person, one vote.” The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Harris’s challenge on Tuesday, in a case that – depending on how broadly the Justices rule – could affect legislative maps far beyond Arizona.