Tag Archives: redistricting

It’s a good bet that recent court rulings on redistricting will embolden residents in other states to emulate Florida, Arizona, and California in adopting oversight measures and rules for redistricting or creating independent commissions to oversee the process. A Florida Supreme Court ruling last week ordering parts of the state’s congressional map to be redrawn affirmed the idea that, left unchecked, state legislatures will create uncompetitive districts and need oversight if the job is not to be taken away. The 5-2 ruling said that the state’s congressional map violates anti-gerrymandering provisions in Florida’s constitution by unfairly favoring Republicans and incumbent lawmakers. Not two weeks earlier, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of an independent redistricting commission, established by Arizona voters in 2000 through the ballot-initiative process.

Florida: The cost to taxpayers for failed redistricting maps? $8.1 million, and counting | Miami Herald

According to the latest tally by the Florida House and Senate, the cost to taxpayers for the Legislature’s defense of the redistricting maps that the Florida Supreme Court ruled invalid last week is $8.1 million. With a trial scheduled to begin in September over the challenge from Democrat-leaning voter groups to the state Senate map, the cost to the taxpayers is mounting. The House, which doesn’t face a legal challenge to its own maps, has spent the most — $4.2 million, through July 10. The Senate has spent $3.9 million — so far. What could that money be used for had lawmakers not relied on political operatives and illegally created a map with the intent to protect incumbents? It would be enough to pay $10,000 bonuses to 810 high-performing teachers. It’s enough to pay the average hospital stay for 4,050 uninsured. It’s even enough to expand the tax free back-to-school holiday another day.

Editorials: Politicians take politics out of redistricting? Fat chance | Palm Beach Post

Twice, Florida courts have rejected the Legislature’s attempts to redraw the map for congressional districts, saying that Republicans in power rigged the results to their advantage. This, after Florida voters overwhelmingly passed two amendments in 2010 aimed at keeping politics out of the process. Now, finally, can we get a nonpartisan independent commission to do what the politicians obviously can’t? On Thursday, the Florida Supreme Court upheld a circuit court’s finding that political operatives had worked behind the scenes to “taint” the state’s redistricting process with “improper partisan intent.” But the high court said Leon County Circuit Court Judge Terry Lewis didn’t go far enough last summer when he ordered that two congressional districts be redrawn. Instead, the Supreme Court threw out eight districts that the Legislature drew up in 2012 — and gave the lawmakers just 100 days to create a new map of congressional districts, one that makes a decisive break with the state’s long history of partisan political gerrymandering.

Illinois: Redistricting: Third Time’s The Charm? | Northern Public Radio

Even as Gov. Bruce Rauner pushes for legislators to authorize a new way of drawing the state’s political map, a citizen-driven initiative is underway. As part of the bargain Rauner is trying to make with Democrats, he wants the legislature to agree to give up control for drawing district boundaries. Cindi Canary isn’t waiting around. “I don’t think that there is any chance that this will go through the legislature,” Canary said. “Our effort was established independently, before he jumped into this. And our thinking is that it has to be bipartisan, citizen’s effort to actually get this on the ballot and get people to vote on it.” Canary recently took over as head of the Independent Map Amendment coalition, which is a privately-funded effort to take map-drawing out of politicians’ hands, and give control to a commission.

Montana: New panel to consider redrawing Montana’s judicial districts for first time since 1929 | Associated Press

A newly appointed panel will consider whether to redraw Montana’s judicial districts for the first time in more than 80 years. Legislative leaders, Montana’s chief justice and other legal institutions picked the seven members of the Judicial Redistricting Commission ahead of a July 31 deadline. Montana has 22 judicial districts. They have been split, but not redrawn, since 1929. A state Supreme Court review last year identified major discrepancies in judges’ workloads from one district to another. Overall, the review found Montana’s 46 district court judges and four standing masters are meeting the caseload and travel demands of more than 65 people.

National: Redistricting Reformers Are Having a Good Summer | Morning Consult

July 13, 2015

Opponents of partisan gerrymandering have scored a series of legal victories in recent weeks as courts rule in favor of reforms aimed at making congressional elections more competitive. On Thursday, the Florida Supreme Court ruled that the Republican-led legislature violated the state constitution when it drew congressional district lines that intentionally favored one party. That decision came after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled last month that an independent redistricting commission in Arizona did not violate the U.S. Constitution. Also in June, a three-member panel of federal judges ordered Virginia’s General Assembly to redraw some congressional district lines after finding legislators packed too many African-American voters into Rep. Bobby Scott’s (D) district.

Florida: Court: Florida must redraw congressional map | Politico

July 13, 2015

The Florida Supreme Court ruled Thursday that eight of the state’s 27 congressional maps must be redrawn by the GOP-led state legislature, a decision that will impact a number of nationally watched House seats in the 2016 election cycle. The 5-2 decision says lawmakers only need to redraw the eight impacted seats, half of which are in South Florida — but because that will impact neighboring districts, the changes will send ripple effects across the state.

Florida: Court Finds Politics Determined District Lines | The New York Times

The Florida Supreme Court on Thursday rejected political gerrymandering by state legislators and ordered eight congressional districts redrawn within 100 days, a decision likely to complicate preparations for next year’s elections. In the 5-to-2 decision, the justices concurred with a trial court’s finding that a 2012 redistricting map drawn by the Republican-led Legislature had been tainted by “unconstitutional intent to favor the Republican Party and incumbent lawmakers,” and that Republican “operatives” and political consultants “did in fact conspire to manipulate and influence the redistricting process.” A proposed map of congressional and legislative districts was presented to the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission in 2011. The Republican-led State Legislature sued to challenge the voter-created commission.

Virginia: Defense says partisan politics, not race, drove redistricting | Richmond Times-Dispatch

Lawyers for House of Delegates Speaker William J. Howell are making a surprising argument to defend against an accusation of racial gerrymandering: Raw, partisan politics targeting Democrats fueled the 2011 redistricting process as much as race. A trial began Tuesday in U.S. District Court in Alexandria on the constitutionality of Virginia’s most recent drawing of legislative boundaries in the House of Delegates. The lawsuit alleges the redistricting plan illegally packs African-American voters into 12 legislative districts. As a result, according to the suit, black voters’ influence in the remaining 88 districts is diminished. A panel of three federal judges is overseeing the trial and must decide whether race was the overriding factor in drawing the lines. Such a finding would increase the chances that the boundaries would be found unconstitutional. If, on the other hand, the judges decide that race was just one of many factors that went into the redistricting, it is more likely that the boundaries would pass muster.

Wisconsin: Democrats sue state election officials over 2011 redistricting | Milwaukee Sentinel-Journal

A dozen Democrats sued election officials Wednesday over legislative maps Republicans drew in 2011 that helped give them a firm grip on state government. The lawsuit comes two years after a panel of three federal judges in separate litigation redrew two Assembly districts and blasted GOP lawmakers for drawing the maps in secret. That panel found the two districts on Milwaukee’s south side violated the voting rights of Latinos, but it upheld all the other legislative maps, allowing Republicans to keep their advantage in elections. The new lawsuit seeks to change that by arguing the maps are so partisan as to be unconstitutional. “This case we hope will be the election law equivalent of Brown v. Board of Education,” said Milwaukee attorney Peter Earle, referring to the landmark school desegregation case. “We will establish a national standard that can be used reliably into the future.”

National: Reality of redistricting in a post-Arizona world | The Hill

On June 29, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the will of the voters with its ruling in Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission. The Court’s ruling was not a resounding victory in the battle against GOP gerrymandering; rather, it simply confirms the rights of voters in states like Arizona and California to create nonpartisan commissions to conduct congressional redistricting. In most other states, redistricting authority remains in the hands of state legislatures, where Republican lawmakers have employed aggressive gerrymandering to distort Congress and further their partisan agenda. The Arizona ruling is a positive development for those who value meaningful democratic representation in Congress. But Democrats and our allies must not allow this decision to divert us from the most effective strategy to fight GOP gerrymandering: electing more Democratic lawmakers to draw the maps. While the establishment of redistricting commissions by voters will remain an available remedy in a few of the most egregiously gerrymandered states, the work of the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee (DLCC) and Advantage 2020 to elect more Democratic state legislators remains the most crucial weapon in the fight for fairer districts.

Florida: Supreme Court orders new congressional map with eight districts to be redrawn; Manatee County could be affected | Bradenton Herald

In a precedent-setting ruling Thursday, the Florida Supreme Court overturned the state’s congressional districts drawn by the GOP-led Legislature and ordered a new map with eight districts drawn in time for the 2016 election. In a 5-2 ruling, with Justices Charles Canady and Ricky Polston dissenting, the court provided unprecedented and specific direction to the Legislature, such as redrawing the snake-shaped district of Congressional District 5, now held by Congresswoman Corrine Brown, in an east-west direction. “This is a complete victory for the people of Florida who passed the Fair District amendment and sought fair representation where the Legislature didn’t pick their voters,” said David King, lead attorney for the plaintiffs. “The Supreme Court accepted every challenge we made and ordered the legis to do it over,”

Wisconsin: Voters file federal suit over ‘one of the worst partisan gerrymanders in modern history’ | Wisconsin Gazette

Wisconsin voters want a federal court to throw out the state Assembly district map, alleging the line‐drawing process “secretive” and “partisan” and the maps unconstitutional for overly advantaging one party. “My rights as a voter are being violated,” retired university professor Bill Whitford, one of the plaintiffs, stated. “If my vote counted as much as each one of my fellow citizens, I would be able to affect the shape of the Legislature. But I can’t, because they’ve decided through these maps that I simply don’t count.” The lawsuit, Whitford v Nichols, argues the current map is one of the “worst partisan gerrymanders in modern American history.”

Florida: State Supreme Court orders new congressional map with eight districts to be redrawn | Tampa Bay Times

The Florida Supreme Court took a wrecking ball to Florida’s political landscape Thursday, throwing out the state’s carefully crafted congressional districts drawn by the GOP-led Legislature and ordering a new map within 100 days. In the historic 5-2 ruling, the court not only ruled the maps were the product of an unconstitutional political gerrymandering, it signaled its deep distrust of lawmakers and provided detailed instructions on how to repair the flawed map in time for the 2016 election. “This is a complete victory for the people of Florida who passed the Fair District amendment and sought fair representation where the Legislature didn’t pick their voters,” said David King, lead attorney for the League of Women Voters and the coalition of voter groups which brought the challenge. “The Supreme Court accepted every challenge we made and ordered the Legislature to do it over.” The new maps are likely to reconfigure nearly all of the state’s 27 congressional districts, open the door to new candidates, and threaten incumbents, who will now face a new set of boundary lines and constituents close to the 2016 election.

Editorials: Gerrymandering won’t end with Supreme Court decision | Carl P. Leubsdorf/Dallas Morning News

The Supreme Court’s decision to allow a redistricting commission set up by Arizona voters holds the potential of reducing the rampant gerrymandering that has virtually guaranteed a Republican-controlled U.S. House until at least 2022. And that would be a good thing, since partisan redistricting in a half-dozen states has skewed the makeup of the House of Representatives, which James Madison said was supposed to display “fidelity and sympathy with the great mass of the people.” But it probably won’t happen. The reason: It’s almost impossible to take politics out of the process by which legislatures re-draw legislative and congressional district lines after every census to reflect population changes. Every unequal redistricting has essentially resulted from an election.

Florida: Senate Redistricting Battle Looms | CBS Miami

As the battle over Florida’s political boundaries looms, the Florida Supreme Court is set to make a decision on the disputed congressional districts. A ruling could come as soon as Thursday. A trial on state Senate districts that lawmakers drew in 2012 is set to be heard by Circuit Judge George Reynolds beginning Sept. 25. But in a flurry of briefs and arguments filed in recent weeks, the Legislature and a coalition of voting-rights groups and citizens have laid out many of the arguments that Reynolds will hear in the high-stakes trial. The opponents of the Senate map, led by the League of Women Voters of Florida, have specifically challenged 28 of the 40 districts that lawmakers crafted during the once-a-decade redistricting process that follows every Census. The 2012 process, though, was the first to fall under the state’s anti-gerrymandering “Fair Districts” constitutional amendments, which were approved by voters two years earlier.

Ohio: Redistricting reform campaign begins, preaching fairness for partisan process | Cleveland Plain Dealer

The campaign to change the way Ohio draws its Statehouse districts will spend the next four months persuading voters to say “yes” to Issue 1 on the November ballot. Fair Districts for Ohio, which kicked off its campaign Wednesday, will be chaired by the former state representatives who led the charge last year to revise the legislative redistricting process. Their plan, which passed the General Assembly with bipartisan support, requires voter approval and will appear on the November ballot as Issue 1. The plan does not change how congressional districts are drawn.

Virginia: GOP Delegate Jones defends 2011 House redistricting | Richmond Times-Dispatch

The chief architect of a Republican legislative redistricting plan said Wednesday that race was just one of many factors used to redraw boundaries in Virginia’s House of Delegates, disputing claims that the redistricting sought at all costs to pack black voters into a dozen districts. Del. S. Chris Jones, R-Suffolk, testified in front of a three-judge panel overseeing the redistricting trial in U.S. District Court in Alexandria. The GOP-controlled House of Delegates is defending itself against a civil lawsuit alleging that the 2011 redistricting unconstitutionally crowded black voters into 12 districts, limiting their influence in the rest of the state.

Florida: Legal ‘battlefield’ takes shape in Senate redistricting fight | Politico

July 8, 2015

After a nearly three-year wait, the outline of a battle over Florida’s state Senate maps is taking shape. Subpoenas are being served and a bitter fight has resumed between consultants and the voting groups that accuse them of illegally influencing political maps. A coalition of plaintiffs, including the League of Women Voters of Florida, filed a legal challenge to the state Senate maps shortly after they were approved during the 2012 redistricting process. They argue the new lines were drawn for “incumbent and partisan favoritism.” That’s in violation of constitutional amendments passed by voters in 2010 that no longer allow redistricting to be used to favor political parties or protect incumbents. Plaintiffs take specific issue with 28 of the state’s 40 state Senate seats, while attorneys for the Legislature argue that political consultants from both parties tried to influence the process, but failed.

Editorials: One for the people | The Economist

July 7, 2015

The biggest racket in American politics is the process by which legislative district lines are decided. In most states, the party that controls the legislature also draws the map. And in a process known as “gerrymandering”, that party typically rigs the districts to make sure its candidates prosper while rival candidates lose. Both Republicans and Democrats are guilty of producing congressional districts, like the one on the right in Massachusetts in 1812, so contorted that they have earned the names “Salamander”, “Hanging Claw” and “The Pinwheel of Death”.

Michigan: Democratic lawmaker to propose redistricting reform in Michigan | Michigan Radio

July 7, 2015

The Supreme Court’s decision to allow voters to take the authority to draw congressional district lines away from state legislatures and give it to independent commissions has many Democrats and progressives in Michigan very happy. There’s been lots of rejoicing among those who’ve hated gerrymandering – the drawing of district lines to benefit one party over the over. For the past fifteen years Michigan Republicans have dominated the redistricting process because they’ve been in control when the lines have been drawn. So, for Democrats, the Holy Grail is some kind of redistricting reform: taking the power of drawing district lines away lawmakers and giving it to an independent commission.

Texas: Despite Ruling, Redistricting Reformers Pessimistic | The Texas Tribune

July 7, 2015

Texas does not have an independent redistricting commission and is probably not going to get one. But the lawmakers who have been ignoring the idea for years lost one of their excuses: In a 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court turned back a challenge to Arizona’s commission, saying the voters had the right to take that power away from legislators. Other states have similar commissions. In some, like Texas, lawmakers draw the maps, and there are hybrids in others.

Editorials: Supreme Court gives Colorado a green light to fix redistricting | The Denver Post

July 6, 2015

Now that independent redistricting commissions have the seal of approval of the U.S. Supreme Court, maybe it’s time for Colorado to consider one. The high court ruled last week that Arizona voters had been within their rights when they passed a referendum stripping the legislature of its authority to draw congressional boundaries every 10 years. Voters set up an independent commission to do the job instead. The 5-4 ruling is controversial, and appears to override fairly explicit constitutional language, but it’s now the law of the land. And it provides an opportunity for Colorado to reform its redistricting process and thus address what Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg delicately called “the problem of partisan gerrymandering.”

Michigan: Groups eye redistricting ballot drive after ruling | Associated Press

July 6, 2015

Buoyed by a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision, advocates of overhauling how Michigan draws legislative and congressional seats plan to raise public awareness about redistricting in preparation for a potential 2016 ballot initiative. The ruling, issued in the last week, upheld the authority of states to strip lawmakers’ authority to set congressional district maps once a decade. Arizona voters had created an independent commission in 2000 to take the politically charged job out of the hands of the Legislature. The League of Women Voters and Common Cause, groups that advocate for fairer maps, are researching other states’ redistricting systems and conducting polling before ramping up educational efforts with help from local civic groups.

National: A Redistricting Ruling That Helps Counter Partisan Gerrymandering | Wall Street Journal

Before the Supreme Court’s decision in the Arizona redistricting case, electoral reform efforts had been in limbo. But Monday’s 5-4 ruling is a major victory for those who support citizen redistricting commissions as a way to counter the polarization and partisan gerrymandering that result from politicians drawing their own legislative districts. In 2000, Arizona voters passed a proposition to shift authority for drawing legislative districts from state lawmakers to a five-member independent commission. Republican legislators who didn’t like the districts that the commission drew after the 2010 Census brought suit in 2012, arguing that it was unconstitutional for anyone except lawmakers to draw congressional districts. In her opinion, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg dispatched this idea. “Arizona voters sought to restore ‘the core principle of republican government,’ namely, ‘that the voters should choose their representatives, not the other way around,’ ” she wrote.

Editorials: Mindlessly Literal Reading Loses Again: This Supreme Court decision is a dig at Bush v. Gore | Richard Hasen/Slate

The Supreme Court ended its term Monday with another major rejection of conservative attempts to use wooden, textualist arguments to upset sensible policies. The result in Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, which upheld the use of independent commissions to draw Arizona’s congressional districts, is a big win for election reformers and supporters of direct democracy. The Arizona decision also undermines the strongest conservative argument in favor of George W. Bush in Bush v. Gore, the case that handed him the 2000 presidential election. Monday’s 5–4 decision has much in common with last week’s blockbuster Obamacare ruling. In a 6–3 decision in King v. Burwell, the Supreme Court upheld the availability of federal subsidies for those signed up for Obamacare despite language in the health care law that could have been interpreted to give those subsidies only to those on state exchanges. The court rejected a narrow reading of the term “such exchanges” in the health care case because it saw its job not to read the text out of context but to follow broad congressional purpose. As Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the King majority: “Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them.”

Voting Blogs: SCOTUS ruling has broader impact than just redistricting | electionlineWeekly

What does this week’s U.S. Supreme Court decision in the Arizona redistricting case mean for the world of election administration? We know it gives a green light to the use of ballot referenda and initiatives to create the kind of nonpartisan redistricting commission that Arizona and California have, and that is potentially a huge development in the world of redistricting itself. We know, too, that the jurisprudential debate between Justice Ruth Ginsburg opinion for the Court’s five-member majority (including the all-important swing vote, Justice Anthony Kennedy) and Chief Justice John Roberts for the four dissenters has the potential for overarching theoretical significance concerning the nature of appropriate judicial interpretation of the U.S. Constitution—as I’ve already touched on elsewhere. But in terms of the rules and institutions for administering the voting process itself, is this week’s decision of particular significance? Yes. For two reasons.

Indiana: SCOTUS ruling paves way for possible Indiana redistricting commission | Herald Bulletin

As an Indiana special interim study committee on redistricting gets ready to meet this summer, a United States Supreme Court decision paved the way for an independent Indiana redistricting committee to become a reality. The Supreme Court ruling stated redistricting commissions independent of a state legislature were constitutional. Sen. Tim Lanane, D-Anderson, said he hopes the study committee will take a close look at creating a commission here in Indiana that will “take politics out of the redistricting process.” Typically, district boundaries are drawn every 10 years by the state legislature. Boundaries have to be redrawn in order to keep populations similar in each district. The party in control ultimately gets to decide where the lines go, which can lead to gerrymandered districts.

North Carolina: Accusations fly as House changes course on Greensboro redistricting | News & Observer