Pennsylvania: House speaker seeks federal redistricting ruling | Washington Examiner

The speaker of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives on Monday asked a federal judge to rule that the state legislative district maps in place for the past decade are unconstitutional and may not be used for any future elections. Revisions to the state’s legislative map that reflect population shifts from the 2010 census are in limbo for now after a new map was rejected by the state Supreme Court last week. A spokesman for Speaker Sam Smith said the federal lawsuit was filed to resolve the ensuing “chaos” the state court’s decision creates for candidates seeking to run in special elections to fill six House vacancies.

Texas: Behind Closed Doors – Texas Redistricting Panel | The Austin Chronicle

Monday, Feb. 6. That’s the deadline set by the San Antonio redistricting panel for all parties to agree on interim House, Senate and Congressional maps, or they’ll miss the deadline for the April 3 primary. But what will the minority voting rights groups want from those maps, and can they stay on the same page? There were rumors floating around all weekend that there could be a deal struck as early as today, but with all parties heading to DC to catch closing arguments in the preclearance hearing tomorrow, Jan. 31, that seems unlikely. The Mexican American Legislative Caucus told the Chronicle this morning that a deal is not imminent, even though they are all working towards some kind of agreement.

Texas: Democrats, minority groups near huge win with redistricting settlement | The Hill

The Texas state attorneys defending the state’s GOP-drawn redistricting plans from court challenges have reached out to settle litigation, according to sources in the state. The settlement would give minority groups and Democrats what they’ve been demanding from the start: more heavily minority, Democratic-leaning House seats. The result would likely mean at least four more Texas Democrats in Congress as of next year, a good start on the 25 or so seats Democrats need to win to retake control of the House. “They’re backed up against the wall and have to come to some agreement and it’ll be awfully favorable on our end,” said one of the plaintiffs in the case. Another plaintiff agreed.  “It’s clear they know they’re in a vulnerable position and that’s why they want to settle,” he said.

National: Civil rights law on Supreme Court’s mind | Thomson Reuters

A recent decision by the U.S. Supreme Court that dealt with a narrow issue in a redistricting case from Texas suggests that the nation’s top court is ready to reconsider a key part of the Voting Rights Act, a major piece of civil rights legislation. In the Jan. 20 decision, which tossed a Texas electoral map back to a lower court, the Supreme Court made a reference to “serious constitutional questions” raised by the act, which was passed in 1965. Legal experts have identified an Alabama case working its way through the courts as a vehicle through which the Supreme Court could eventually take another look at the act

Editorials: Messin’ with Texas (Redistricting) | Samuel Issacharoff/Boston Review

For the past 30 years, redistricting in Texas has provided great theater. As the state has gone from one-party Democratic to a Republican stronghold to renewed stirrings of bipartisan competition, the controlling party has exploited the decennial line drawing to lock in gains. And just as certainly, the courts have provided refuge for those on the outs. The Supreme Court has recognized the problem on a national scale but has been unable to see a solution. The justices have failed to find an easy definition of what is fair, what level of manipulation is permissible, how much greed is tolerable, how many districts should be assigned to this group or that group.

Texas: Testimony in Texas redistricting trial wraps up | San Antonio Express-News

Testimony wrapped up Thursday in a trial before a three-judge panel to determine if redistricting maps drawn by the Texas Legislature violate the Voting Rights Act and discriminate against minorities. The final witness, a redistricting expert, told the court that a congressional map drawn by the Republican-controlled Legislature removed 479,000 Latinos from districts that elect minority-preferred candidates.

Pennsylvania: High court throws out assembly redistricting plan, says it’s ‘contrary to law’ | PennLive.com

A divided Pennsylvania Supreme Court on Wednesday invalidated a plan to redraw state House and Senate district lines, calling the redistricting approach “contrary to law.” The justices voted 4-3 to send the plan back to the Legislative Reapportionment Commission, and the majority said their opinion in the case, laying out the reasoning, would be released later. The high court’s ruling immediately threw into disarray plans by candidates and parties for this year’s General Assembly races.

Kentucky: GOP to seek injunction on House redistricting | Evansville Courier & Press

Kentucky House Republicans plan to file a lawsuit within days challenging the constitutionality of a redistricting measure that hits GOP state representatives especially hard, the party’s House floor leader said Wednesday. Rep. Jeff Hoover said the lawsuit also will seek an injunction to delay implementation of the measure and ask that next Tuesday’s election filing deadline be postponed until the matter is resolved. A government watchdog group, concerned about what it considers overtly political motives that fashioned new legislative districts, may seek to join the case. “I am very sympathetic,” said Richard Beliles, head of Common Cause of Kentucky. “I think this was very unfair.”

Pennsylvania: High court throws out assembly redistricting | herald-mail.com

A divided Pennsylvania Supreme Court on Wednesday invalidated a plan to redraw state House and Senate district lines, calling the redistricting approach “contrary to law.” The justices voted 4-3 to send the plan back to the Legislative Reapportionment Commission, and the majority said their opinion in the case, laying out the reasoning, would be released later. The high court’s ruling immediately threw into disarray plans by candidates and parties for this year’s General Assembly races.

Texas: State again facing possibility of two primaries | San Antonio Express-News

Texas could soon be facing the possibility of having its primaries split into two elections, a federal judge said Monday. U.S. District Judge Orlando Garcia wrote in a filing that he was giving the move “serious consideration” if the groups involved in the fight over the state’s interim redistricting plans can’t agree on a set of maps by Feb. 6. Garcia, who leads the panel of judges that was ordered by the U.S. Supreme Court last week to redraw interim district maps for the 2012 election, also moved a key hearing up by three days, to Friday, when the court will hear arguments on how best to move forward.

North Carolina: Court Denies Motion to Delay Primary : Roll Call Politics

North Carolina Democrats looking for a court to overturn a Republican-drawn Congressional map took a hit today when a three-judge panel denied their motion to delay the primary, scheduled for May 8. “The court is not persuaded that a delay of the primaries … will have any meaningful, practical value or materially aid in protecting the rights asserted by the plaintiffs,” the chief judge of the panel said, according to WRAL.

Texas: Supreme Court Rejects Judge-Drawn Maps in Texas Redistricting Case | NYTimes.com

The Supreme Court on Friday instructed a lower court in Texas to take a fresh look at election maps it had drawn in place of a competing set of maps from the Texas Legislature. The justices said the lower court had not paid enough deference to the Legislature’s choices and had improperly substituted its own values for those of elected officials. The court’s unanimous decision extends the uncertainty surrounding this major voting-rights case, which could help determine control of the House of Representatives.

Editorials: Despite Supreme Court ruling, Texas congressional map still very uncertain | The Washington Post

The drama over Texas’s new congressional map will drag on after the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday blocked an interim court-drawn map. The Court on Friday ruled that an interim 2012 election map drawn by a federal court in San Antonio must give greater deference to the original map drawn by the GOP-controlled Texas state legislature. The ruling is at least a temporary victory for Republicans, in that it blocks an interim map to be used for the 2012 election that is preferred by Democrats. But it’s still not clear that the end result will be any better for Republicans. In fact, it’s not clear what the end result will be at all.

Voting Blogs: Court rejects Texas maps, delays West Virginia map | SCOTUSblog

The Supreme Court on Friday unanimously overturned orders issued by a federal court in Texas that drew its own new maps for legislative districts, and ordered it to reconsider.  In an 11-page unsigned opinion, the Court said that the three-judge District Court in San Antonio may not have used the “appropriate standards,” which the Court spelled out in some detail.  Justice Clarence Thomas, in a separate opinion, repeated his view that a key federal voting rights act implicated in the Texas case is unconstitutional.  The decision is here.

Florida: U.S. Supreme Court weakens Florida Democrats’ hand in redistricting disputes | Palm Beach Post

A House panel Friday worked to narrow the number of plans for Florida legislative and congressional boundaries, even as a U.S. Supreme Court ruling strengthened the Legislature’s hand in drawing new district boundaries. The House Redistricting Committee centered on one map each for House, Senate and congressional lines, heading toward a scheduled vote next week. The House is playing catch-up to the Senate, which earlier this week approved its own set of maps. “We’re moving as quickly as we can, but not to the detriment of the public or the membership” (of the Legislature), said Redistricting Chairman Will Weatherford, R-Wesley Chapel.

Idaho: Idaho Supreme Court Throws Out Redistricting Plan | Times-News

The Idaho Supreme Court overturned a controversial plan to redraw the state’s legislative districts Tuesday, ordering the commission that made it to adopt a new district map that more closely follows the state and U.S. constitutions.
Twin Falls County Prosecutor Grant Loebs filed a petition on behalf of four Idaho counties and four cities in November, arguing that it wasn’t necessary to split so many counties to create 35 legislative districts of roughly equal population. In the 4-1 decision, the Supreme Court agreed that the adopted map splits more counties than is necessary to meet the U.S. Constitution’s requirement of one person, one vote. It ordered the Redistricting Commission to reconvene and adopt a map with minimal county splits.

Texas: Supreme Court sides with Texas on redistricting plan | The Washington Post

The Supreme Court on Friday set aside Texas redistricting plans drawn by a federal court that were favored by minorities and Democrats, and ordered the lower court to come up with new plans based more closely on maps drawn by the Texas legislature. In an unsigned opinion that drew no dissents, the justices said a federal panel in San Antonio “exceeded its mission” in drawing interim plans for the state’s upcoming primaries. It said the court was wrong to believe its plans needed to be completely independent of the ones passed by the legislature. “A district court should take guidance from the state’s recently enacted plan in drafting an interim plan,” the justices wrote. They added, however, that courts must be careful not to incorporate parts of a state’s plan that might violate the Constitution and the federal Voting Rights Act.

Editorials: Actual Winner Unclear in Supreme Court’s Ruling on Texas Redistricting | ProPublica

The Supreme Court ruled this morning that federal judges in Texas overstepped their bounds in drawing a minority-friendly set of interim maps for the state to use in the 2012 elections. The Court ruled unanimously that the judges should have given more deference to the new district maps drawn by the Republican-controlled Texas legislature even though parts of these maps may discriminate against Latinos. The Department of Justice has argued that the state legislature’s plans would harm minorities and violate the Voting Rights Act.  A panel of federal judges in Washington, D.C., is in the process of determining whether those plans did, in fact, break the law. Because that decision may not be made in time for the next elections, federal judges in San Antonio were tasked with drawing interim maps for the state to use. The maps used in Texas’ next elections could impact the balance of power in Congress. They will likely determine whether the four new congressional seats awarded Texas via the census will be held by Democrats or Republicans.  The Supreme Court’s decision leaves the fate of those seats in limbo.

Texas: Whither the Texas primary? | Texas Redistricting

With the Supreme Court yet to rule, questions inevitably have turned to whether there is any way it will be possible to keep to an April 3 primary. Senator John Cornyn and many election law lawyers think that chance is becoming increasingly remote.  In fact, many observers aren’t even certain when the primary could be held if it needs to be moved. Consider the logistical challenges. Even if the Supreme Court rules this week or early next week (by no means certain), the San Antonio court will need time to respond to the Supreme Court’s rulings – unless, of course, the Supreme Court simply orders one or the other maps into effect – but that seems unlikely based on last week’s oral argument.

Editorials: Counting Voters Fairly | NYTimes.com

A Federal District Court late last month wisely upheld a 2010 Maryland law that counts prison inmates as residents in their home communities for purposes of redistricting, rather than at the prisons where they are incarcerated. The practice of counting inmates as local “residents” — even though they lack the right to vote — has been used to inflate the power of mainly rural areas where prisons tend to placed. It undercuts the power of the urban districts where the inmates actually live and where they generally return when they are released.

Texas: Judges in DC to decide if Texas redistricting violated federal Voting Rights Act | Chron.com

A three-judge federal court panel will begin hearing two weeks of testimony today to determine whether the Texas Legislature violated the Voting Rights Act and diluted minority voting strength when it redrew political maps for state House, Senate and congressional seats. The District of Columbia panel will review plans drawn by the Legislature under Section 5 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, which requires the Justice Department to approve beforehand changes to the political process. A finding by the court that the maps discriminate would then shift attention to the Supreme Court and a ruling on whether interim maps by a court in San Antonio could be used.

Massachusetts: More than 82K residents may lack representation for second leg of two-year session | BostonHerald.com

Taxation without representation? That might be the case for about 82,000 residents in Worcester, Belmont, Arlington and Cambridge if leaders on Beacon Hill opt against scheduling special elections to fill the seats being vacated by Rep. Vincent Pedone and Rep. William Brownsberger, who both could be gone from the House before the end of the week. House Speaker Robert DeLeo on Monday told the News Service he was leaning against holding special elections in both districts.

Utah: Navajo Nation sues Utah county over voting issues | Deseret News

The Navajo Nation filed a federal lawsuit Thursday against San Juan County, claiming its three established voting districts violate the constitutional rights of tribal members living in Utah. The lawsuit filed in Salt Lake City’s U.S. District Court asks a federal judge for an injunction that would force county commission district boundaries to be redrawn ahead of the November election. No hearings have been scheduled in the case.

West Virginia: Leaders Turn to Supreme Court | Roll Call

Top West Virginia legislators have asked the Supreme Court to overturn a lower court’s decision and let them keep a new Congressional map in place. In an emergency appeal filed late Friday, key legislative leaders and Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin (D) said that drawing up a new map would cost too much money and take too much time.

Texas: GOP files advisory with SCOTUS, says primary cannot be moved | Texas Redistricting

The Republican Party of Texas took the unusual step today of sending a post-argument letter to the Supreme Court to tell the court in no uncertain terms that the date of the party’s state convention could not be moved. In the letter, sent on behalf of RPT chair Steve Munisteri, the party told the high court “for numerous legal, logistical, and practical reasons, moving the Texas primary to any date after mid-April 2012 would wreak havoc with the state’s electoral process and present insurmountable difficulties.”

Utah: Navajos sue San Juan County over voter rights | The Salt Lake Tribune

The Navajo Nation has filed suit in U.S. District Court for Utah, alleging that San Juan County is attempting to keep Navajos from capturing a second seat on the county’s three-member commission by failing to redraw voting districts to reflect the 2010 U.S. Census. The suit, filed Thursday in Salt Lake City, alleges that San Juan County is in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment and in violation of the 1973 Voting Rights Act by ensuring that non-Indian voters hold majorities in two of the county’s three voting districts.

Tennessee: Redistricting May Run Afoul of the Voting Rights Act | Metro Pulse

In 1994 the Tennessee Republican Party won a big victory. The Republicans elected a governor, Don Sundquist, two senators, Fred Thompson and Bill Frist, and took a 5-4 majority in the House delegation. But amidst all these victories the Democrats retained control of the state House of Representatives and would continue that control until 2008. They were able to do that because in 1992 they redrew House districts and put 12 Republican House members in six districts, thus automatically removing six incumbent Republicans in the House. Had those six incumbents still been in office in 1994 the Republicans would have won control.

Texas: Is Voting Rights Act target of redistricting case? | San Antonio Express-News

The Supreme Court began hearing arguments Monday in the Texas redistricting case that could reach far beyond the districts in dispute. What began as a partisan spat could end up as a challenge to the Voting Rights Act and the power of Congress. Every 10 years when the census count is in, the states redraw the boundaries of their state and federal election districts to reflect changes in the population over the past decade. In Texas, as in most states, that is the job of the majority party of the legislature. After Republicans became a majority of the Legislature in 2002, they took control of the redistricting process. They drew plans designed to keep and increase their legislative and congressional majorities in 2012 at the expense of the will of minority voters.

Wisconsin: Glitch puts some Wisconsin voters in Africa | JSOnline

Clerks in the state are scrambling to assign voters to the right districts after last summer’s redrawing of legislative maps, with changes to the process putting voters in incorrect locations across town or even across the Atlantic Ocean. The problems could add to the confusion for voters who may already be affected by the redistricting law approved by legislators last summer. Primaries for spring races are being held on Feb. 21, leaving little time to sort out the problems. The errors affect thousands of voters around the state and stem from different sources, including inaccuracies in U.S. Census Bureau data and problems with a new way of assigning voters to districts in a state database.

Texas: Supreme Court Argument in Texas Redistricting Cases Highlights Importance of Shelby County Voting Rights Act Case | Text & History

Yesterday, in an unusual afternoon session, the Justices of the Supreme Court jumped right into the political thicket, debating the authority of a federal court in Texas to draw election districts for the state’s  upcoming primaries.  Texas currently has no legally enforceable district lines.  Its current districts are now badly out of step with the constitutional requirements of one person, one vote, and its new district lines have yet to be precleared, as required by Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, one of our Nation’s most iconic and important federal civil rights statutes.  During yesterday’s 70-minute argument in Perry v. Perez, the Justices sought to figure out a solution that would permit the upcoming primary elections to go forward, consistent with the requirement of the Constitution and the Voting Rights Act.  Hovering over oral argument in Perry v. Perez was the question of the constitutionality of the Act’s preclearance requirement.  In 2009, in NAMUDNO v. Holder, the Roberts Court came dangerously close to striking down this bedrock provision of the Voting Rights Act, but yesterday, at least, the Justices showed little interest in debating the Act’s constitutionality. As Chief Justice Roberts specifically observed, “the constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act is not at issue here.”