California: Federal judge rejects challenge to L.A. council’s 2012 redistricting | Los Angeles Times

A federal judge on Tuesday rejected a three-year-old legal challenge to the boundaries drawn for Los Angeles’ 15 City Council districts, saying she found no evidence that race was the predominant factor in creating the new maps. U.S. District Judge Consuelo B. Marshall said lawyers for the city provided “undisputed evidence” that the boundaries approved by the council achieved “traditional non-racial redistricting” goals, such as keeping distinct communities and neighborhood councils in the same district. The ruling delivered a major victory to council President Herb Wesson, who presided over the once-a-decade redistricting process and is now seeking a third term in Tuesday’s election. The decision also dealt a blow to a group of Koreatown residents who argued that the map-making process diluted the neighborhood’s voting power and unlawfully divided it into multiple districts.

Virginia: Federal court gives legislature more time to redraw districts | The Washington Post

A federal court on Monday gave the Virginia General Assembly more time to redraw the state’s congressional map, which the panel ruled unconstitutional for diluting the influence of African American voters. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia moved the April 1 deadline to either Sept. 1 or 60 days after the U.S. Supreme Court rules on a pending appeal from congressional Republicans, whichever comes first. The ruling favors the approach taken by House Speaker William J. Howell (R-Stafford), who said Friday that he would not redraw the lines until the appeal was decided. Gov. Terry McAuliffe (D) disagreed and said last week that “running out the clock” unnecessarily confuses what, he said, should be a straightforward process. “The governor remains ready to work with the General Assembly to pass a fair, nonpartisan congressional map that complies with the court’s standing ruling on this issue,” McAuliffe’s spokesman, Brian Coy, said Monday.

Washington: Yakima facing mounting costs in ACLU elections suit | Yakima Herald Republic

As the Yakima City Council considers whether to appeal a federal judge’s decision changing the city’s elections system, members are confronted with an issue of cost versus conscience. Most have at some point in the 21/2-year case come out opposed to changing the elections system. Yakima voters also rejected a separate redistricting proposal in 2011 brought about by a citizen initiative. Regardless, a federal judge has said the system violates the federal Voting Rights Act and on Tuesday ordered a new system of voting by district that includes two districts with a majority of Latino voters. Even if a majority of the council dislikes that outcome, their options for continuing the fight create potentially enormous financial challenges. It’s not just that the city has already spent $918,314 defending the case, or that the American Civil Liberties Union, which filed the case, is expected to seek a sum even greater to cover its legal fees and costs. It’s also a question of where the money to pay for it comes from because the case isn’t covered by the city’s insurance policy.

Editorials: California fixed redistricting; will the Supreme Court break it again? | Nicholas Stephanopoulos/LA Times

Californians may not realize it, but one of their best political ideas is under attack. In 2008, voters approved an initiative that created an independent redistricting commission; then in 2010, they expanded its reach to include the state’s congressional districts. The commission, which designed its first maps in 2011, has quickly become a model for the country. Structurally, it shields its members from political pressure. Aesthetically, its districts are compact and respect community boundaries. And electorally, they are competitive and politically balanced compared to the ones they replaced. If Arizona’s commission falls, California’s cannot stand. Both were created by a voter initiative — not by the Legislature. Neither gets legislative approval for their maps. The reason this reform is in jeopardy? Arizona State Legislature vs. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission — set to be argued before the U.S. Supreme Court on March 2.

North Carolina: Redistricting Bill Gets House Support But May Falter In Senate | WFDD

Support for reforming the way the state’s political maps are drawn is getting bi-partisan support in the State House. A bill to make those changes has 63 co-sponsors, but that far from guarantees it will be passed. The bill is the third attempt by the House since 2011 to put the responsibility for drawing congressional maps in the hands of a non-partisan panel. That power now lies with the lawmakers themselves, which many observers see as a conflict of interest. Jane Pinsky is director of the non-partisan group End Gerrymandering Now. She says she’s encouraged that so many have signed on to the House Bill, but says it still faces an uphill battle in the Senate.

Virginia: House has no immediate plans to redraw congressional map | The Washington Post

The speaker of the Virginia House of Delegates said Friday that he will not redraw congressional district lines while appeals are pending in a federal court case that deemed the map unconstitutional for diluting the influence of African American voters. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia last year ordered the Virginia General Assembly to remake the map by April 1, but congressional Republicans quickly appealed the ruling. House Speaker William J. Howell (R-Stafford) said initiating the redistricting process could create confusion if the Supreme Court reverses the lower court. “The Virginia House of Delegates fully intends to exercise its legal right to attempt to remedy any legal flaw ultimately found by the courts with respect to the current congressional districts,” Howell said in a statement Friday. “However, we believe it would be inappropriate to act before the defendants have fully litigated this case. We are confident that a stay will be granted.”

Virginia: House GOP in no hurry to tackle redistricting process | The Daily Progress

Any chance of progress on a constitutional amendment or legislation changing the way Virginia draws its congressional and legislative boundaries is all but dead in the General Assembly session. Thirteen of the 14 bills and proposed constitutional amendments addressing the creation of a redistricting commission, including a number aimed at a nonpartisan approach, failed to pass both the House of Delegates and the Virginia Senate. While the Senate passed four redistricting measures on its own, three of them — in addition to 10 similar bills and resolutions filed by members of the House — were killed or left to die in the House Privileges and Elections Committee. The lone remaining piece of redistricting legislation — Senate Joint Resolution 284, sponsored by Sen. Jill Holtzman Vogel, R-Fauquier — is headed to almost certain demise Friday morning in a P&E subcommittee.

North Carolina: House members file redistricting bill to ban ‘irregularly shaped’ boundaries | News Observer

A bipartisan group of N.C. House members filed the second of two proposals Monday to create a nonpartisan redistricting process. House Bill 92 would be modeled on an Iowa plan that lets lawmakers vote on redistricting proposals drafted by legislative staffers. It would take effect for the next round of redistricting, after the 2020 U.S. Census. The group Common Cause North Carolina, which advocates for election reforms, is pushing for the bill. “For decades, North Carolina’s flawed redistricting system has resulted in gerrymandered districts that deprive voters of having a real voice in their elections,” executive director Bob Phillips said in a statement Tuesday. “We applaud these Republican and Democratic lawmakers for working together to pass reform that would protect the fundamental right of voters to choose their representatives.”

Virginia: Challenge ahead, state senator’s bill would make his district even safer | The Washington Post

A state senator facing a competitive reelection bid this fall has proposed legislation that would make his district more Republican — and therefore safer for him. Sen. Bryce E. Reeves, a freshman senator from Spotsylvania County, about an hour south of the District, won his seat four years ago by 226 votes. He already faces a Democratic challenger this year. Reeves filed a bill that would trade precincts with a neighboring district represented by Sen. R. Creigh Deeds (D), giving Deeds a heavily Democratic precinct and taking for himself a Republican one.

Editorials: How To Run For Congress in a District That Doesn’t Exist | Jack Fitzpatrick/National Journal

Andy Tobin has an odd problem. The Arizona Republican thinks he can win a House seat in 2016 after his 2014 bid to unseat a Democratic incumbent fell just short. But as he prepares his next bid, he can’t say for sure what district he’ll run in, or even if, by 2016, the districts he’s currently eyeing will still exist. That’s because the fate of Arizona’s electoral map is currently sitting before the Supreme Court. The court will hear arguments next month in a case that pits Arizona’s Republican-led legislature against a state commission that was assigned to draw its Congressional districts. The commission was created in 2000 in order to stop gerrymandering and create competitive districts, but lawmakers say that process was unconstitutional because the authority to draw districts should belong solely to the state’s elected officials. After the March arguments, the court will likely issue a ruling by the end of its term in late June. And when the ruling comes down, it has the potential to shake up the Congressional map not just in Arizona, but in a host of states (including California) that have looked outside their legislatures for help drawing the boundaries of their Congressional districts.

Editorials: Maryland redistricting reform | Baltimore Sun

Maryland almost certainly will not enact reforms to the way it redraws legislative and congressional districts this year because the most powerful proponent of the idea, Gov. Larry Hogan, isn’t pushing it. He wants a commission to study the issue and provide advice on the best way to remove partisan politics from the process, and given the variety of reforms other states have tried in that vein, his approach makes sense. But he’d better not wait for long, otherwise the unique conditions that make this reform possible will soon evaporate. Many of the Democrats who control Maryland’s General Assembly would probably agree philosophically that district lines should be drawn without party politics in mind, and few would be willing to mount a defense of the state’s Congressional districts, which are generally considered among the nation’s most gerrymandered. But the reason reform efforts have gone nowhere in the past is that the Democratic powers that be viewed them as unilateral disarmament in the face of aggressive gerrymandering in Republican-dominated states. Indeed, a number of Democratic lawmakers have explicitly suggested that Maryland should not enact such reforms unless it could recruit a buddy state dominated by Republicans to make an offsetting switch at the same time. That’s another way of saying it’s never going to happen.

Maryland: Redistricting reform is in spotlight in Maryland – and in bills | Baltimore Sun

Some state lawmakers are hopeful the stars are aligned for Maryland to change the way it draws its political districts — a process that has resulted in some of the most convoluted maps in America. Their hopes were bolstered recently when Republican Gov. Larry Hogan devoted part of his first State of the State address to a call for redistricting reform. “We have some of the most gerrymandered districts in the country. This is not a distinction that we should be proud of,” Hogan said. “Gerrymandering is a form of political gamesmanship that stifles real political debate and deprives citizens of meaningful choices.” Hogan said he would create a commission to study the state’s redistricting system, but some lawmakers are not waiting for its findings. They are proposing bills aimed at taking politics out of a process that has helped Democrats achieve lopsided majorities in the General Assembly and turn the congressional delegation from a 4-4 split in the 1990s to a 7-1 advantage over Republicans.

Editorials: Lawmakers guard their privilege | The Virginian-Pilot

State lawmakers draw the boundaries that define the communities they represent in the House of Delegates and Senate, and those of their counterparts in the U.S. Congress. It’s an arrangement enshrined in Virginia’s constitution, a document adopted in 1971 and reflective of the technical limitations of that era. But as each decade has passed, lawmakers have managed to precisely draw boundaries in a way that tilts elections before they are held. A combination of voting records, population data and sophisticated software has permitted lawmakers and their partisan surrogates to identify and assign voters to districts in proportions that protect incumbents and political power. That explains how eight of Virginia’s 11 congressional races last fall were won by a margin of at least 20 percentage points. Or how, in 2013, barely half of the House of Delegates seats were contested. Or how, in 2011, just six of 40 seats in the state Senate were decided by 10 points or fewer. The winner of most races is determined long before Election Day. The electorally corrupt current system serves solely to preserve political power. It is designed to dilute voters’ voices.

Virginia: Redistricting reform debate continues with little traction in State House | The Washington Post

The day after the House and Senate passed bills policing gift-giving and travel, good-government advocates said lawmakers were silent on the biggest ethics issue facing the state: redistricting. A House panel will consider Thursday the first of several Senate proposals that call for nonpartisan drawing of the lines separating legislative districts — a political process currently controlled by the General Assembly. Because districts are often drawn to protect incumbents, they tend to include populations that lean heavily toward one party over the other — attracting candidates who appeal to the extremes of their parties at the expense of bipartisanship or moderation. As a result, redistricting is regularly blamed for the partisan discourse that sometimes defines the tenor of the Legislature.

New Mexico: Independent redistricting commission fails in Senate committee | NM Political Report

A piece of legislation that would put the decennial redistricting in New Mexico in the hands of an independent redistricting commission instead of the state legislature and governor failed in a Senate committee. “This is big,” Sen. Bill O’Neill said in reference to the changes the legislation would make. “This is huge. This is seismic.” The Senate Rules Committee voted overwhelmingly to table the bill, but not all because they disagreed with the bill itself or the sentiments the sponsor said brought him to introduce the legislation. The legislation is that “both the legislature and the executive do not make the final determination on the lines when it comes to redistricting,” according to O’Neill. “Rather an independent commission makes that final decision.

Editorials: Changing The Way We Vote Isn’t Getting More People To Vote | Amy Walter/Cook Report

California is the closest thing we have to a political lab for engineering a solution for the country’s voter apathy problem. From permanent absentee voting to term limits and redistricting reform and now a top-two primary system, California has tried just about every remedy imagined to help boost voter participation in the state. The result: turn-out in the Golden State last year for both the primary and general election was the lowest it has been in recorded history. Did reform fail? Was it a failure of candidates themselves? Or is there something more that California’s lack of voter interest can tell us about why/how reforms to voting systems impact actual voting behavior? At a conference organized by the Institute of Governmental Studies at the University of California at Berkeley – called California Votes 2014 – some of the smartest and most plugged-in political professionals in the state tried to diagnose the state’s lack of interest in the 2014 election. Before we get to the question of why voters didn’t turn out, it’s notable that California’s low turn-out election didn’t bring Republicans the success they found in other parts of the country last year. Democrats actually swept all seven of the Golden state’s partisan offices and picked up one seat in the House. The joke out in California is that the GOP wave of 2014 stopped at the foot of the Sierra Nevada Mountains. Some have attributed this to the younger and more diverse (i.e, heavily Hispanic) electorate. But, the Latino turn-out was just 15 percent – 4 points less than it was in 2012. And, young people didn’t show up either.

Virginia: Legislature divided on redistricting | Your Daily Journal

Some state lawmakers are joining together in a bipartisan effort to limit legislative control over redistricting. A House bill introduced Wednesday calls for an amendment to the state Constitution that would establish an independent redistricting commission to determine districts starting in 2030. The commission would propose three plans to the General Assembly for the election of state House and Senate members and U.S. representatives. If legislators fail to act within 120 days, the commission would adopt one of the three plans. The bill sets up a nine-person commission with two members chosen by the chief justice of the state Supreme Court, three by the governor and the remaining four by the leadership in both houses. Membership on the commission would be limited to those who had not held or ran for a public office four years prior to being appointed and prohibited from holding public office for four years after leaving.

Arizona: U.S. Supreme Court to Rule on the Meaning of ‘Legislature’ | Governing

When is a legislature not a legislature? That odd question could have big implications for election law. The U.S. Supreme Court is about to hear arguments in a case brought by Arizona legislators challenging the authority of the state’s independent redistricting commission, which was set up by voters through a ballot initiative back in 2000. The federal Constitution states that election law shall be crafted “in each state by the legislature thereof.” The idea that this clause refers to anything other than the legislature itself is “wholly specious,” argues Arizona Senate President Andy Biggs. The commission’s lawyer, however, notes that the high court has previously held that the word “legislature” in the Constitution doesn’t necessarily mean the literal legislature, but rather the state’s lawmaking process on the whole. But the fact that the Supreme Court agreed to hear this case in the first place might mean some of the justices are ready to rethink this interpretation.

Nevada: Gloves come off: Nevada GOP’s move on redistricting draws howls from Democrats | Las Vegas Sun

It didn’t take long for partisan politics to overshadow the prayers, songs and stilted harmony of the Legislature’s opening day. Democrats contend that in the first hours of the session, Republicans diverted the Legislature’s focus from education reform by introducing a bare-knuckle, partisan topic: redrawing political districts. Republicans, in majority control of the Legislature, acknowledge they’re exploring redistricting but say they are working to fix what’s proven to be a complicated, divisive process in the state. Redistricting is the process of reconfiguring district boundaries to adjust for population shifts and maintain an equal number of representatives for residents in different geographic areas. Depending on how the boundaries are drawn, the process can be a major factor in winning elections, as parties have an opportunity to loop in areas with strong voter turnout and high concentrations of voters who traditionally support them. At the same time, one party can create a disadvantage for the other by leaving it with areas where voter turnout is traditionally weak. “There’s nothing more partisan and political bloodsport than redistricting,” said Tim Storey, an elections analyst for the National Conference of State Legislatures.

North Carolina: Lawmakers Set to Introduce Bipartisan Redistricting Reform | Chapelboro.com

A plan for redistricting in North Carolina is once again being put forward by state lawmakers. A bipartisan group of legislators, from the House and Senate, held a press conference at noon on Tuesday. The purpose was to put forward a proposal to change how voting maps are drawn in the Tar Heel state. The debate over redistricting in North Carolina has raged on for more than a century. For years Democrats controlled the state legislature, and they drew maps that were favorable to the election of more Democrats. And that was deemed legal by the court system. During that time, Republicans, and some Democrats, repeatedly called for lawmakers to conceive of a more fair system for how the maps are drawn. Now that Republicans are in control of the state House and Senate, the roles have reversed.

Maryland: Governor to Push for Redistricting Reform | Associated Press

Gov. Larry Hogan said Wednesday he will form a bipartisan commission to explore reforming Maryland’s legislative redistricting process. Hogan said his goal is to give the authority of redrawing the state’s legislative districts to an independent, bipartisan commission. Currently, the shaping of legislative districts every 10 years in Maryland is largely in the hands of the governor, who submits a proposed map to the Legislature, which votes on it. Critics say Maryland has some of the most gerrymandered congressional districts in the country. Gerrymandering is the process in which state officials draw congressional districts to benefit their party. “This is not a distinction that we should be proud of,” Hogan said near the end of his first State of the State speech. Hogan said he would form a commission by executive order to explore reforms.

Nevada: Republicans could take up mid-decade redistricting | The Washington Post

Republican lawmakers in Nevada this week took the first step toward solidifying their hold on a state that looks increasingly up for grabs — if those members are willing to detonate the political equivalent of a nuclear bomb in Carson City. Buried deep within the yearly package of rules that will govern how the state Assembly and Senate will operate, Republicans inserted a provision that would allow them to consider redrawing Nevada’s political boundaries. The new rules, which ordinarily govern mundane legislative procedures, such as parliamentary rules and disclosure reports, passed both chambers on party-line votes. But the threat of redrawn lines that could solidify Republican control may be less about actually implementing new maps and more about forcing Democrats to come to the negotiating table on other issues.

North Carolina: Redistricting bills face Senate resistance | Charlotte Observer

Lawmakers from both parties Tuesday renewed their effort to take politics out of one of their most politically charged jobs – redistricting. And advocates say they’re optimistic despite the continued opposition of leaders in the state Senate, where earlier efforts have died. “Realistically it’s an uphill battle,” said Jane Pinsky, director of the Coalition for Lobbying and Government Reform. “We hope that the legislators will … not remain confident that just because they’re in charge now or just because they were in charge 10 years ago that they’re going to be in charge in 2020.” Legislative and congressional districts currently are drawn every 10 years by legislators. As a result, critics say those districts typically favor the party in power, result in less competition and therefore fewer moderates who have to answer to a broader constituency. Last year nearly half of the state’s 170 legislative seats were uncontested.

Virginia: House Speaker Howell joins redistricting lawsuit | The Washington Post

The Speaker of the Virginia House of Delegates has intervened in a federal lawsuit that alleges his chamber’s legislative districts were gerrymandered to dilute African-American influence. Speaker William J. Howell (R-Stafford) and the House of Delegates will now be defending in court the map they drew in 2011 against a lawsuit filed by a group of Virginia citizens against the state Board of Elections and Department of Elections. Judge David J. Novak granted Howell’s motion Tuesday. “The speaker has an obligation to ensure that the House is represented in court,” spokesman Matt Moran said. Any legal fees will be paid out of the House budget at Howell’s discretion.

Editorials: Election law changes aid politicians | Dan Walters/The Sacramento Bee

When politicians tinker with the laws governing their own elections, one should view their proposals with a guilty-until-proven-innocent attitude. Almost always, the politicians proclaim that they are acting in the public interest to make elections fairer. And almost always, election law changes would improve the politicians’ chances of holding their offices or advancing up the political food chain. The most obvious example of the syndrome is redistricting – altering the boundaries of legislative, congressional, city council, county supervisor or school trustee districts to comply with population shifts. Self-serving gerrymanders had become so common in California that the state’s voters finally shifted the power over legislative and congressional districts from the Legislature to an independent commission.

North Carolina: New effort begins to remove politics from drawing districts | The State

Republicans in 2011 carved North Carolina into new districts from which public officials are elected, creating 170 areas for state lawmakers and 13 for members of Congress in a required effort to maintain balanced populations. Democrats and left-leaning groups complained that the new maps intentionally deflated their candidates’ chances in the state and federal elections, but courts have upheld the redistricting effort — which is necessary after every Census — as fair, legal and based on sound methodologies. But there’s a reinvigorated movement among officials and policy groups with ties to both political parties who say they’re sick of gerrymandering, or at least of the public skepticism that comes when politicians handle how the voting areas are drawn.

California: A Gerrymandering Comeback in California … via Arizona? | KQED

Several months of quiet whispers have quickly turned into a resounding buzz — and a nervous buzz, no less — about a case pending before the U.S. Supreme Court that questions whether it’s constitutional for independent state commissions to have the sole power to draw political district maps. The case is centered on Arizona, but the buzz being heard on this side of the Colorado River arises from the fear that if a lower court’s ruling is thrown out, California may very well be next in the return to partisan congressional gerrymandering. It explains why everyone from legal scholars to three former California governors is asking to be heard before the nation’s highest court.

Washington: State Voting Rights Act returns in Legislature | Yakima Herald Republic

A bill drafted with Yakima’s council elections system in mind has returned for a third straight try at passing in the Legislature. The state Voting Rights Act, which would make it easier to force localities to switch to geographic district-based elections, was reintroduced Wednesday in the House and with a companion bill in the Senate. The bills are sponsored by Rep. Luis Moscoso, D-Mountlake Terrace, and Sen. Cyrus Habib, D-Kirkland. The proposal would make it easier to challenge a local government’s elections format in court if evidence of racially polarized voting exists.

Florida: Redistricted maps product of Democratic meddling, Legislature tells Court | SaintPetersBlog

Attorneys for the Florida Legislature are calling on the Florida Supreme Court to reject proposed redistricting maps submitted by voting-rights groups. Their argument: the maps are a product of influence by Democratic “partisan operatives and political consultants.” In a court filing on Monday, lawyers representing the House and Senate are asking to discard the maps weeks before the court hears arguments on the constitutionality of redistricting approved by the Republican-controlled Legislature. The Florida League of Women Voters is among the groups that brought suit, saying the districts violate Florida’s Fair District anti-gerrymandering constitutional amendment voters put in place in 2010.

California: 3 former California governors back independent redistricting | Los Angeles Times

Three former California governors are wading in to an Arizona elections case before the Supreme Court that could have major implications on how California draws its congressional and legislative districts. Former Govs. George Deukmejian, Pete Wilson and Arnold Schwarzenegger, along with the California Chamber of Commerce, GOP mega-donor Charles T. Munger Jr. and entrepreneur Bill Mundell, submitted a brief late Friday stating their support for an independent commission that crafts a state’s districts, rather than restricting the task to state legislatures. Arizona, like California, has an independent panel that draws the state’s districts. But Arizona’s legislature wants to take the job back and has challenged the constitutionality of allowing such a committee to determine district boundaries. They argue that legislators alone have that power. The case is set to go before the Supreme Court in March.