Florida: Lawsuit that could change Florida elections begins | Florida Times-Union

A court fight over Florida’s political landscape kicked off Friday, as attorneys for the Republican-controlled Legislature and groups suing them clashed over the question of whether legislators intended to thwart the will of voters when they drew new districts for congressional seats in 2012.
Lawsuits were first filed two years ago. The trial is scheduled to start this month in a dispute that could ultimately change the current makeup of the state’s congressional delegation, where Republicans hold a sizable majority. In an effort to speed up the 11-day, non-jury proceedings, both sides were allowed to give their opening statements Friday. David King, an attorney representing the League of Women Voters and other groups suing the state, told Judge Terry Lewis that legislators used a “shadow process,” which allowed them to circumvent a constitutional mandate prohibiting legislators from drawing districts intended to protect incumbents or members of a certain political party.

National: Efforts to revive Voting Rights Act provision stall in Congress | Dallas Morning News

Ten months after the Supreme Court struck down a key provision of the Voting Rights Act, efforts have stalled in Congress to restore federal scrutiny of states with a history of racial bias. Freed from the need for Justice Department approval before changing election rules, even minor ones, states moved quickly to impose tight voter ID laws. But changes are also playing out quietly at the local level. In Jasper, an East Texas town with a history of racial tension, the City Council is deciding whether to annex mostly white subdivisions. In Galveston, Texas, some court districts have been eliminated. Civil rights advocates complain that these moves dilute minority populations, unfairly reducing the influence of non-white voters. Before last summer’s court ruling, such changes in nine states could not take effect without pre-approval from Washington. Defenders of the decades-old system say the oversight served as a deterrent, prompting state and local officials to think twice before imposing burdensome or even unconstitutional measures.

Texas: State Ordered to Disclose Legislative Docs in Voting Case | Legal Times

Calling part of Texas’ litigation position “inconsistent,” a federal trial judge has ordered the state to turn over certain legislative records to the U.S. Department of Justice in a closely watched Voting Rights Act case. The Justice Department is seeking information from more than three dozen Texas state lawmakers that could illuminate the Legislature’s motivation in 2011 to enact congressional redistricting plans. U.S. District Judge Orlando Garcia’s ruling on Tuesday gives the federal government some access to documents that lawyers for Texas argued were off limits. Lawyers for Texas insisted the Justice Department must subpoena the individual legislators for the documents. The attorneys said Texas did not have possession of or control the documents. The state argued that the individual lawmakers are not parties in the lawsuit.

Virginia: Lawsuit alleges ‘racial gerrymandering’ | Associated Press

Virginia is one of several states where Democrats have gone to court to challenge redistricting plans drawn by Republicans seeking to keep control of the U.S. House of Representatives. Marc Elias, an attorney for the National Democratic Redistricting Trust, represents two Virginia voters in a lawsuit that accuses the General Assembly of “racial gerrymandering” by improperly packing African-Americans into the state’s only black-majority congressional district to make adjacent districts safer for GOP incumbents. A trial is set for this month. “We’re trying to remedy what we believe is an unconstitutional map drawn by the legislature,” Elias said. Democrats have also challenged GOP-drawn redistricting plans in other states — including Texas, Florida, Nevada and Missouri — but they are not alone in employing the tactic. Republicans also have asked courts to invalidate Democrat-produced remapping in a few states.

Arizona: Federal panel upholds Arizona legislative map | AZ Central

A divided federal court has upheld the legislative map drawn by the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, removing any question about which districts candidates would run in this year. The 2-1 decision by a federal panel came 13 months after the trial, which was sought by a group of Republican voters, including the wife of Senate President Andy Biggs. The plaintiffs argued the map approved by the redistricting commission in 2011 violated equal protections as ensured by the U.S. Constitution because partisanship motivated the creation of some of the 30 districts. But the court assumed that partisanship was not a contributing factor as it weighed the legal arguments in the case, although it conceded that in one district in northern Pinal County, it contributed to a commission decision to shift the boundary lines.

Arizona: Court upholds legislative district lines | Arizona Daily Sun

In a 55-page opinion, the three-judge panel acknowledged that some of the lines drawn by the Independent Redistricting Commission created districts that were larger or smaller in population than others. And they said the evidence shows that “partisanship played some role in the design of the map.” But the court ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment to U.S. Constitution does not require that legislative districts have precisely equal population. Instead, the judge said, there can be “divergencies” that are necessary to achieve other goals. And in this case, they said, that the commission’s decision to manipulate the lines were “primarily a result of good-faith efforts to comply with the Voting Rights Act” and its prohibitions against diluting minority voting strength, and not primarily to give Democrats a political leg up.

Arizona: Republicans Lose Legal Challenge to State Voting Map | Businessweek

Arizona Republican voters lost a challenge to an electoral districts map for the state assembly that they said favors Democrats by putting too many voters in districts with Republican majorities. A panel of federal judges voted 2-1 to reject the argument that the redrawn map by the state’s Independent Redistricting Commission violated the constitutional rights of Republican voters to equal protection and can’t be used in elections. “We conclude that the population deviations were primarily a result of good-faith efforts to comply with the Voting Rights Act, and that even though partisanship played some role in the design of the map, the Fourteenth Amendment challenge fails,” according to the panel’s majority opinion.

Delaware: Bill to create redistricting commission faces House panel vote | Delaware State News

Lawmakers and community stakeholders seeking transparent reform for legislative redistricting hope to clear a major roadblock today, as a bill creating a government-appointed commission in charge of redistricting is up for a vote in the House Administration Committee. The five-member committee, made up of the leadership from both parties, is set to hear a year-old bill that would make the process of drawing up the state’s 62 legislative districts public and out of the hands of majority party lawmakers in a closed door procedure that’s not under the state’s FOIA laws. The bill only needs three votes to be released onto the House floor for a full debate. “I don’t see a need for it,” said House Speaker Pete Schwartzkopf, D-Rehoboth Beach, on Tuesday, the legislature’s first day back from Easter break. After securing his party’s vote as House Majority Leader in 2010, Rep. Scwartzkopf was directly involved with redrawing the House of Representatives’ 41 legislative districts, a process that takes place every 10 years to reflect population changes in the U.S. Census survey.

Wisconsin: Federal Judge Strikes Down Wisconsin Law Requiring Photo ID at Polls | New York Times

A federal judge on Tuesday struck down Wisconsin’s law requiring voters to produce state-approved photo identification cards at polling places, advancing a new legal basis — the Voting Rights Act — for similar challenges playing out around the nation. Judge Lynn Adelman, of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, found that the state’s 2011 law violated the 14th Amendment of the Constitution as well as the Voting Rights Act, which bars states from imposing rules that abridge a citizen’s right to vote based on race or color. “I find that the plaintiffs have shown that the disproportionate impact of the photo ID requirement results from the interaction of the requirement with the effects of past or present discrimination,” Judge Adelman wrote in the decision. “Blacks and Latinos in Wisconsin are disproportionately likely to live in poverty. Individuals who live in poverty are less likely to drive or participate in other activities for which a photo ID may be required (such as banking, air travel, and international travel) and so they obtain fewer benefits from possession of a photo ID than do individuals who can afford to participate in these activities.”

Florida: State redistricting lawsuits get political | Tampa Tribune

It was a crisp mid-February day in the nation’s capital, but a hot topic at the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee had a distinctly Sunshine State feel. A handful of Democratic political operatives, many of Florida’s congressional Democrats, and Nancy Pelosi, the House’s top Democrat from California, huddled in the offices of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee during the 2012 meeting to discuss an ongoing Florida redistricting lawsuit. On the agenda was an overview of the newest version of Florida’s congressional map, which was drawn as part of a lawsuit in a Tallahassee court challenging the redistricting process. Court documents and emails that are part of the redistricting lawsuit show that the map was drawn and paid for by Democratic consultants in consultation with the Florida Democratic Party, which is no longer involved in the lawsuit.

Texas: Lawsuit seeks redrawing of Texas Senate districts | Associated Press

Two Texas residents backed by a conservative legal group have filed a federal lawsuit in Austin challenging how state Senate voting districts were drawn, according to a published report Tuesday. The Project on Fair Representation wants a judge to cancel this year’s primaries, which used Senate boundaries drawn by the Legislature in 2013, the Austin American-Statesman reported. Instead, the group would like to see state lawmakers ordered to draw new districts. The plaintiffs are voters in two state Senate districts represented by Republicans Kevin Eltife, of Tyler, and Tommy Williams, of The Woodlands. The lawsuit argues that the way districts were drawn was unconstitutional since it was based on total population. The districts should have been drawn only based on the number of eligible voters, excluding children, felons and noncitizens, the lawsuit says. It also says that districts with fewer eligible voters have more influence than those in districts with more eligible voters, which is unconstitutional.

Texas: Lawsuit seeks redrawing of Texas Senate districts | Associated Press

Two Texas residents backed by a conservative legal group have filed a federal lawsuit in Austin challenging how state Senate voting districts were drawn, according to a published report Tuesday. The Project on Fair Representation wants a judge to cancel this year’s primaries, which used Senate boundaries drawn by the Legislature in 2013, the Austin American-Statesman reported. Instead, the group would like to see state lawmakers ordered to draw new districts. The plaintiffs are voters in two state Senate districts represented by Republicans Kevin Eltife of Tyler and Tommy Williams of The Woodlands. The lawsuit argues that the way districts were drawn was unconstitutional since it was based on total population. The districts should have been drawn only based on the number of eligible voters, excluding children, felons and noncitizens, the lawsuit says. It also says that districts with fewer eligible voters have more influence than those in districts with more eligible voters, which is unconstitutional. 

Texas: Justice Department, Texas Clash Over Discovery in Voting Rights Case | Legal Times

The U.S. Department of Justice and Texas have locked horns over discovery in a prominent voting rights challenge. Lawyers from the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division asked a panel of judges Wednesday to compel Texas to turn over legislative documents that “may shed light on the Texas Legislature’s motivation” for enacting the 2011 congressional redistricting plans. Specifically, the department’s lawyer say they’ve asked Texas to supplement its responses to similar document requests in other litigation in the state over alleged violations of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. This time, Texas said no, according to the Justice Department.

Texas: Justice Department, Texas Clash Over Discovery in Voting Rights Case | Legal Times

The U.S. Department of Justice and Texas have locked horns over discovery in a prominent voting rights challenge. Lawyers from the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division asked a panel of judges Wednesday to compel Texas to turn over legislative documents that “may shed light on the Texas Legislature’s motivation” for enacting the 2011 congressional redistricting plans. Specifically, the department’s lawyer say they’ve asked Texas to supplement its responses to similar document requests in other litigation in the state over alleged violations of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. This time, Texas said no, according to the Justice Department.

Florida: Orange County voting rights suit: Government lawyers fail to kill Latino voting rights suit | Orlando Sentinel

A federal judge ruled against Orange County government lawyers today and allowed a lawsuit to proceed that alleges elected officials diluted Latino voting strength in its latest redistricting effort. “We’re going to trial,” said Juan Cartagena, president and general counsel of LatinoJustice PRLDEF, the civil rights group behind the lawsuit. “They can’t stop us now. They tried, and it didn’t work.” A county spokeswoman said Orange officials do not comment on pending litigation. Instead of a jury, Chief Judge Anne C. Conway will preside over the voting rights trial set for May 12.

Illinois: Consolidating St. Clair County voting precincts could save $300K | News Democrat

A plan to consolidate voting precincts in St. Clair County could save $300,000 during a two-year election cycle. St. Clair County Board members Frank Heiligenstein, a Democrat of Freeburg, and David Tiedemann, a Republican of Shiloh, are pushing to combine the county’s voting precincts with the fewest voters. State law recommends voting precincts should have between 500 and 800 voters per precinct. The county has 40 voting precincts with fewer than 500 voters. “If we follow logic and common sense, we could eliminate 65 precincts,” Heiligenstein said, noting he believes each precinct should have about 1,200 voters. St. Clair County Board Chairman Mark Kern said county officials are working to consolidate precincts that fall significantly below the required 500 voter level and the county should adhere to all applicable law when consolidating precincts.

Virginia: Gerrymandering distorts Virginia’s House makeup | Associated Press

Take a look at Virginia’s congressional delegation and you might think it’s the same old reliably Republican state that backed 10 GOP presidential candidates in a row, starting with Richard Nixon in 1968. But that 8-3 Republican advantage in the delegation is misleading. Democrats have won every recent statewide election. President Barack Obama broke the GOP winning streak and carried Virginia in 2008 and 2012. Both of the state’s U.S. senators are Democrats. And last fall, Democrats swept the top three statewide offices – governor, lieutenant governor and attorney general – for the first time in 24 years. “Virginia really stands alone when we talk about how rapidly this state has moved from a reliably red state to a purple state,” said Stephen J. Farnsworth, a political science professor at the University of Mary Washington in Fredericksburg. “The Democrats are clearly in the ascendancy and have rapidly moved from underdog status to really the dominant party in statewide elections. That’s not reflected in the state House of Delegates and Congress because of gerrymandering.”

Hawaii: Redistricting bound by islands, commission | Associated Press

Island geography, a politically balanced commission and dominance in all politics by Democrats means redistricting and reapportionment issues are different in Hawaii than in other U.S. states. The islands haven’t seen significant impacts from gerrymandering in a state that voted 70 percent for President Barack Obama in 2012 and has had only three Republicans among 21 federal lawmakers since statehood. Hawaii has two U.S. House districts to go along with its two senators. The reapportionment and redistricting process is done every 10 years, governed by a commission created by the state constitution.

Nevada: Panel conducts Nevada redistricting process | Associated Press

Unlike some other states where Republicans used their gains in statewide elections to seize control of the redistricting process after the 2010 census, the re-drawing of Nevada’s voting districts was done by a court-appointed panel and overseen by a judge. Politics was still at play as Republican Gov. Brian Sandoval twice vetoed maps approved by Democratic lawmakers and tossed the task of redistricting to the courts. Democrats held majorities in both the Nevada Senate and Assembly in 2011, a year after the census set up the once-a-decade political jockeying to revamp voting boundaries to account for population and demographic changes. Before the 2010 election, the GOP had majorities in 36 state legislative bodies. Afterward, the party controlled 56. In half the states, Republicans won control of the entire redistricting process, giving them immense power to draw favorable districts for Congress and state legislatures. In other states, Republicans gained control of at least one legislative chamber, limiting the ability of Democrats to draw districts that favored their candidates.

National: Voting Rights Advocates Try to Put Oversight Back on the Map | ProPublica

When the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a key part of the Voting Rights Act last June, justices left it to Congress to decide how to fix the law. But while Congress deliberates, activists are turning again to the courts: At least 10 lawsuits have the potential to bring states and some local jurisdictions back under federal oversight – essentially doing an end-run around the Supreme Court’s ruling. A quick refresher: The Voting Rights Act outlaws racial discrimination against voters. But the law’s real strength comes from its “preclearance” provision, which forces jurisdictions with a history of racial discrimination to submit new voting measures to the federal government for approval. In last summer’s Shelby County v. Holder ruling, the Supreme Court threw out the part of the law that spelled out when states were automatically subject to federal oversight. States that have been released from preclearance have already passed a rash of new restrictive voting measures, as ProPublica reported earlier. Enter the lawsuits, which hinge on a different part of the Voting Rights Act, the so-called “bail-in” provision. It lets federal courts impose preclearance if a state or local jurisdiction violates the Constitution’s 14th or 15th amendments, which guarantee equal protection and the right to vote.

Montana: Justices uphold rejection of redistricting lawsuit | The Missoulian

The Montana Supreme Court has upheld the rejection of a lawsuit claiming Montana’s Districting and Apportionment Commission improperly assigned a Democratic senator to a new central Montana district. The court, without comment this week, affirmed a ruling by state District Judge Mike Menahan of Helena, who said the five-member panel did not violate open meetings law when it made the Senate District 15 assignment a year ago. Supreme Court Chief Justice Mike McGrath said the court will issue a full opinion later, but wanted to issue its decision before the end of candidate filing next Monday.

Arizona: Court dismisses challenge to Arizona congressional maps | Arizona Daily Star

Arizona voters have a constitutional right to wrest control of drawing congressional boundaries from the Legislature, a federal court ruled late Friday. U.S. District Judge Murray Snow acknowledged the arguments by Peter Gentala, an attorney for the Republican-controlled Legislature, that the U.S. Constitution spells out that the “times, places and manner” of electing members of Congress “shall be prescribed in each state by the Legislature thereof.” But Snow, writing for the majority of the three-judge panel, said he reads nothing in the Constitution that precludes the voters, as the ultimate lawmakers, from deciding that legislative chore and instead giving it to the Independent Redistricting Commission, which is what they did in 2000. That makes the lines the commission drew for the state’s nine congressional districts legal and enforceable, he said.

National: Proposed Voting Rights Fix May Leave Latinos Vulnerable at Polls – NBC News.com

Until recently, the federal government monitored states like Arizona — which has the country’s fifth-largest Hispanic eligible voter population — that had a demonstrated history of racial discrimination at the polls. Arizona was one of nine states, along with other jurisdictions, required by Section 5 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, to get federal approval before making changes to its voting laws. But in 2013, the Supreme Court invalidated key parts of the Voting Rights Act, ruling in Shelby County v. Holder that they were based on outdated data. In response, a bipartisan group of lawmakers has introduced legislation that would strengthen the Voting Rights Act. Reps. Jim Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., John Conyers, Jr., D-Mich. and Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., have introduced the Voting Rights Amendment of 2014. But under their plan, only four states – Georgia, Louisiana, Texas, and Mississippi – would initially be subject to federal supervision.

Ohio: Election history will repeat itself in Ohio districts drawn to favor one party or the other | Cleveland Plain Dealer

Any way you define “suspense,” the word doesn’t apply to Ohio’s November election, at least as to General Assembly and congressional contests. Districts drawn by Republicans favor Republicans, and so the legislature will continue to be Republican-run, and even though Ohio twice voted for Barack Obama, most of Ohio’s U.S. House members will be Republican. Yes, history proves that Ohio Democrats, when they could, drew tilted districts, though that was a while ago. Yes also, when Democrats last ran the Ohio House, they cold-shouldered a reasonable plan to at least try to make Ohio General Assembly and congressional districts less one-sided. Drawing tilted maps is called “gerrymandering,” named for a Massachusetts governor, Gerry (rhymes with “Gary”), who signed a slanted remap in the Bay State in 1812. So, if Democrats somehow run the Ohio General Assembly in 2021, after 2020’s census, they’ll draw Ohio’s congressional districts to suit Democrats. If Republicans run things, they’ll do the same for the GOP.

Florida: Miami-Dade delays drawing new election precincts — again | Miami Herald

Miami-Dade voters endured lines up to seven hours long during the last presidential election in part because the county delayed a key once-a-decade decision to evenly divide voters among precincts. Now, with a looming gubernatorial election in November, the county plans to delay the decision once again. Mayor Carlos Gimenez and his appointed elections supervisor, Penelope Townsley, said Thursday they have decided to push back “re-precincting” until early 2015. The reason: The county thinks the reshuffle would be too much to handle in the same year that Miami-Dade plans to install new electronic sign-in books at every polling place. “We’re trying to cram in too much at one time,” Gimenez told his elections advisory group Thursday. “We don’t want to create that confusion.” That’s the same reason Gimenez and Townsley, after consulting with county commissioners, decided against the new precincts in early 2012. The uneven distribution contributed to the long lines, as did the 10- to 12-page ballot and fewer early-voting days.

New York: Albany County minority election districts case can proceed | Times Union

A lawsuit that alleges Albany County didn’t do enough in 2011 to create a new election district made up mostly of minority voters can go forward, a judge ruled. In a decision issued Tuesday, Judge Lawrence E. Kahn ruled there are enough black residents in a compact geographic area in the county to create a fifth minority district, allowing the case to proceed to trial. The plaintiffs — who include local NAACP leader Anne Pope and former County Legislator Wanda Willingham — brought the action seeking to invalidate the 2011 redistricting map by arguing the 2010 census showed a growth in the minority population, and therefore, minority representation should have been increased to five legislators out of 39 from the current of four. The suit says the county violated the 1965 Voting Rights Act.

Editorials: Don’t Blame the Maps | Jowei Chen and Jonathan Rodden/New York Times

Do the Republicans owe their current congressional majority to gerrymandering? At first glance, it seems self-evident that they do. In the 2012 election, the Democrats won the popular votes for the presidency, the Senate and the House of Representatives. But somehow in the House — for whose seats Republicans controlled the redistricting process in many crucial states — the Republicans managed to end up with a 16-seat majority despite losing the popular vote. The presumption among many reformers is that the Democrats would control Congress today if the 2012 election had been contested in districts drawn by nonpartisan commissioners rather than politicians. But is this true? Another possibility is that Democrats receive more votes than seats because so many of their voters reside in dense cities that Democratic candidates win with overwhelming majorities, while Republican voters are more evenly distributed across exurbs and the rural periphery. Perhaps even a nonpartisan redistricting process would still have delivered the House to the Republicans.

North Carolina: Justices will not delay 2014 elections | Associated Press

The 2014 elections will go on as planned after North Carolina’s highest court refused to delay them while the justices consider the legality of the most recent version of election districts. The state Supreme Court announced Friday its denial of a motion by election and civil rights advocacy groups and Democratic voters challenging the boundaries for General Assembly seats and North Carolina’s congressional delegation. They wanted to halt the start of the election schedule that begins Feb. 10 with candidate filing, as well as the May 6 primary, until the court ruled whether the boundaries are legal. The state’s highest court heard oral arguments on the constitutionality of the maps earlier this month.

Editorials: Can Ohio erase partisan pencils? | Cincinnati.com

Ohio’s Legislature doesn’t look like Ohio. And, in some cases, lawmakers aren’t doing what Ohioans would want them to do. And citizens have little chance to change it. That’s because the problem stems, in part, from the state’s broken system of drawing legislative district lines, in which Ohio’s majority party creates districts it can win. For example, in the 2012 election, a slight majority of votes cast in state House of Representative races went to Democrats. But after redistricting, those votes translated into a supermajority for Republicans in the Ohio House, with 60 seats to Democrats’ 39. Last year, the leaders among those 60 Republicans refused to take up bills to expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act or to institute a tax on fossil fuels released through fracking, even though public polling showed a majority of Ohioans supported both measures.

North Carolina: State Supreme Court ponders legality of redistricting | Associated Press

The validity of North Carolina’s legislative and congressional maps is back in the hands of the state Supreme Court as attorneys argued Monday whether the boundaries comply with federal and state laws and previous court opinions. The court’s seven justices offered few of their own questions during 90 minutes of arguments over the districts drawn by Republican legislators in 2011 for the General Assembly and North Carolina’s U.S. House delegation. As usual, the justices gave no indication when they would rule. Many arguments focused upon redistricting decisions the state’s highest court had released over the past 10-plus years for previous boundaries. Thousands of pages of motions, briefs and background have been filed by lawyers since this round of redistricting litigation began in late 2011. “I’m not sure there’s anything left unsaid here,” said Special Deputy Attorney General Alec Peters, defending the maps for the state.