Cooper v. Harris, 581 U.S. (2017).
|
|
- Dayna Snow
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Cooper v. Harris, 581 U.S. (2017). ELECTIONS AND REDISTRICTING TOP 8 REDISTRICTING CASES SINCE 2010 Plaintiffs alleged that the North Carolina legislature violated the Equal Protection Clause when it increased the percentage of black voters in two of the state s congressional districts: District 1 and District 12. By packing black voters into these two districts, Republicans were able to whiten all of the adjacent districts, altering their partisan makeup in a way that favored Republicans. In North Carolina, race is a better predictor than party affiliation for how a citizen will vote. North Carolina had argued in court that adding black voters to each of the districts was necessary to both comply with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and to get preclearance under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act (which still applied to North Carolina during the 2011 redistricting process). The Supreme Court rejected the state s arguments and ruled that compliance with neither Section 2 nor Section 5 of the Voting Rights act could justify the Republican-dominated legislature s decision to pack black voters into a few districts. The Court noted that Section 2 of the VRA only requires that minority voters be able to elect their candidate of choice, and does not require any specific percentage of minority voters in any one district. The Court went further to note that race could also not be used as a proxy to achieve other goals, including partisan gerrymandering. Cooper v. Harris overturned the central holding of Easley v. Cromartie, a 2001 racial gerrymandering case. Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, 576 U.S. (2015). In 2000, Arizona voters adopted an amendment to the Arizona Constitution via ballot initiative that removed the legislature s authority to draw legislative and congressional districts. The amendment vested this power with a newly created Independent Redistricting Commission (IRC). In 2012, the Arizona State legislature challenged the constitutionality of removing what they consider to be their constitutional powers and giving them to another entity. The argument is based on the Elections Clause of the United States Constitution, which gives this power to the legislatures to draw congressional districts. The three-judge federal district court dismissed the plaintiffs challenge. The case was then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court which affirmed the lower court s ruling. The Court held that redistricting is a legislative function that is left to the laws of the state to determine the process. The Elections Clause does not restrict this particular power of the state. States retain autonomy to establish their own governmental process. If this includes enacting laws via a citizens initiative process, as is true in Arizona and two dozen other states, then the state retains this power to establish an independent redistricting process through a ballot initiative.
2 Evenwel v. Abbott, 578 U.S. (2016). Voters in Texas sought an injunction barring the use of the 2011 state legislative maps. They argued that Texas should adopt a map measured by voter population numbers, not total population numbers. A three-judge federal district court in Texas dismissed the case for failure to state a claim. It was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. The U.S. Supreme Court rejected the plaintiffs claim that the Texas plan based upon total population was in violation of the one-person, one-vote principle of the Equal Protection Clause. The plaintiffs alleged that because the maximum population deviation in Texas was 40 percent when taking into consideration the size of districts based upon voting age population, their vote was diluted. The Supreme Court held that centuries of practice and precedent establishes the principle of representation that serves all residents, not just ones that are eligible to vote. Nonvoters have an important stake in many policy decisions and debates, therefore are accorded their fair representation. The Court took previous rulings and interpretations of the Constitution as applied to congressional districts to its logical conclusion. If the 14 th Amendment calls for the apportionment of congressional districts based upon total population, then why should state legislatures be prohibited from doing the same? The court interpreted language from Section 2 of the 14 th Amendment, Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, as applying to state legislative districts as well. The court did not determine that a state must use total population numbers, and instead said that a state may use total population numbers. Gill v. Whitford, 218 F.Supp. 3d 837 (Nov. 21, 2016). Potentially the most important redistricting case since Shaw v. Reno or even Reynolds v. Sims, the plaintiffs in Whitford argued that the Wisconsin Legislature s redrawing of district maps was so extremely partisan that it violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. To back up their argument, plaintiffs relied on a new way to calculate when a redistricting plan would be so partisan it would violate the constitution: the Efficiency Gap. The theory is novel because it attempts to quantify the effect of partisan gerrymandering to prove the intent to gerrymander for political gain. Under the Efficiency Gap, every vote over or under 50% + 1 (or the bare number of votes necessary to prevail in an election) is a wasted vote. Because gerrymandering involves packing voters into a small number of districts or cracking them across across multiple districts to dilute their voting power, calculating the margins of victory via the Efficiency Gap can indicate an intent to gerrymander. According to the University of Chicago law professor who developed the theory, an efficiency gap score greater than 7% indicates a 95% likelihood that partisan gerrymandering occurred, and any efficiency gap beyond that line should be unconstitutional. In Wisconsin in 2012 and 2014, the efficiency gap was in the teens. The three-judge District Court panel ruled in 2016 that the Efficiency Gap had promise as a theory, and based on that theory (and others presented to the court) struck down the Wisconsin
3 Legislative map as an unconstitutional gerrymander. This was the first district court to find an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander in a generation. Wisconsin appealed the decision to the Supreme Court earlier this year, and the Court will hear oral arguments this fall. If affirmed by the Supreme Court, it would be the first time the Supreme Court has adopted a legal standard against which redistricting plans can be adjudged for their partisanship. Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U.S. (2013). Shelby County, Alabama was covered by sections 4(b) and 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA). Section 4(b) of the VRA identifies data that shows the cause and effect of statewide practices in the past that led to discrimination in voting. Using this data, certain states and jurisdictions were defined as covered jurisdictions, which meant that any changes in their voting procedures had to be approved, either by the Department of Justice or by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, before they were implemented. When they were enacted in 1965, the coverage formula and preclearance requirements were set to expire after five years. Congress extended them several times, most recently in 2006 for 25 more years. In 2011, Shelby County sued the U.S. attorney general, challenging the constitutionality of both section 4(b) and section 5. The primary contention was that the coverage formula in section 4(b) had not changed since the VRA was initially enacted in Plaintiffs claimed that things have drastically changed since then in Shelby County and that the standards based on old data should no longer apply. At the trial level, a federal district court in Washington, D.C. upheld both section 4(b) and section 5. The D.C Circuit court affirmed the lower court s holding. Shelby County appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Shelby County in a 5-4 holding with Chief Justice Roberts writing the majority opinion, ruling that section 4 of the Voting Rights Act is unconstitutional. The court had to balance exceptional conditions surrounding the implementation of the Voting Rights Act with the basic principles of the 10 th Amendment and equal sovereignty among the states. The Tenth Amendment reserves to the states all powers not specifically granted to the federal government. This includes the power to regulate elections. In addition, there is also a fundamental principle of equal sovereignty among the states, which in essence frowns upon disparate treatment of states. The court found that because voter registration rates have increased in minority communities, and minority candidates today hold office in unprecedented numbersm the coverage formula is no longer sufficiently related to the problem it targets and the current burdens of the VRA are not justified by current means. Due to the court s ruling in Shelby County v. Holder, states and jurisdictions previously covered under section 4 do not need to be precleared under the requirements of section 5. It is still possible that states or jurisdictions could be bailed in again for preclearance under the VRA, if a pattern of current discrimination is found.
4 Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, 578 U.S. (2016). Voters in Arizona challenged the independent commission s state legislative redistricting plan based on a wider population deviation among districts, alleging that the plan violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14 th Amendment which requires states to make an honest and good faith effort to construct districts as nearly of equal population as is practicable. Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 577 (1964) (otherwise known as one person, one vote ). Plaintiffs argued that the increase in deviation in district populations in the 2010 cycle redistricting plan stemmed from illegitimate considerations, especially partisanship. Plaintiffs noted that that the maximum population deviation of the 2010 plan was twice as much as the 2000 plan (8.8 percent deviation for the 2010 maps, compared to 4.07 percent for the 2000 maps). A three judge federal district court ruled in favor of the Commission. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court s decision, with Justice Breyer writing for a unanimous court. The Supreme Court held that deviations are justified by legitimate considerations incident to the effectuation of a rational state policy. These legitimate factors include traditional redistricting principles such as: compactness, contiguity, integrity of political subdivisions, competitive balance of political parties, and Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. In addition, in order to prevail in future cases, plaintiffs must show that it is more probable than not that a deviation of less than 10% reflects the predominance of illegitimate reapportionment factors. Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama, 575 U.S. (2015). The Alabama Legislative Black Caucus and others filed suit claiming that the Alabama Legislature violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment by drawing the 2012 state legislative map with race as their predominant motivation. The State sought to redistrict to achieve two main goals: minimizing the extent to which a district may deviate from precisely equal population by setting for itself a one percent population deviation (so no district population would be more than one percent larger or smaller than the ideal ), and compliance with the Voting Rights Act. The legislature argued that its goal was to faithfully comply with the Voting Rights Act, which requires the state to draw districts the preserve the minority community s ability to elect the candidate of its choice. The resulting maps added many new minority voters to majority-minority districts. The three-judge federal district court ruled in favor of the State. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case to the three-judge federal district court. The Supreme Court declared that to prove that racial considerations predominated, the plaintiffs needed to prove that the legislature purposely subordinated traditional race-neutral districting principles to race-based considerations. The race-neutral principle applied by the legislature was to maintain a population deviation of no more than one-percent. The Supreme Court held that this was not a traditional redistricting principle, but in fact was a background principle. This ruling does not indicate that the legislature acted with discriminatory intent or is not within its right to enact a percentage-based threshold. Instead, the ruling clarified that the court will not and lower courts must not view this principle with the same level of deference it gives to traditional principles. By being declared a background
5 principle, the one-percent goal is not of equal weight when viewed against racial considerations. Therefore, the lower court must look at traditional principles, such as compactness and contiguity for example, to see if they were used alongside racial considerations when the legislature drew the maps. After weighing these traditional principles, the lower court may still be able to find that racial considerations predominated. When racial considerations predominate, the reason for this predominance must be narrowly tailored to a compelling governmental interest. The Supreme Court remanded the case to the three-judge federal district court to apply this standard. As for districts that were held to be narrowly tailored, the Supreme Court ruled that the district court s standard required the legislature to ask itself the wrong questions. The district court said the question the legislature should ask is How can we maintain present minority percentages in majority-minority districts? They should have required the legislature to ask, To what extent must we preserve existing minority percentages in order to maintain the minority s present ability to elect the candidate of its choice? This requires a functional analysis that looks at whether a new redistricting plan would likely deprive minority voters of their ability to elect a candidate of their choice. The Supreme Court also ruled that the three-judge federal district court was also in error when it looked to the legislature s maps as an undifferentiated whole. The legislature stated that it followed no bright-line rules and that race did not predominate in the drawing of some or many districts. Again, the Supreme Court said this is the wrong standard to apply. The district court should have scrutinized each individual district. According to previous Supreme Court case law, an Equal Protection Clause violation is based upon placing a significant number of voters within or without a particular district. Bethune-Hill v. Virginia State Board of Elections, 580 U.S. (2017). Voters in Virginia filed suit in a three-judge federal district court alleging that the Virginia State Legislature violated the Equal Protection Clause when it drew state legislative districts in The legislature drew new lines for 12 state legislative districts that ensured that each of these districts would have a black voting-age population (BVAP) of at least 55 percent. The legislature claimed they did so in order to comply with the Voting Rights Act. During discovery, plaintiffs sought from the House intervenors all documents related to the 2011 Virginia redistricting process, including communications with members, staff, lobbyists, consultants, political organizations, constituents, voters, and government officials. The House produced some documents but withheld others on the basis of legislative and other privileges. The court applied the five-factor test used in Comm. for a Fair & Balanced Map v. Ill. Bd. of Elections, and ordered the House to produce the following: (1) any documents or communications created after the redistricting legislation's date of enactment; (2) any documents or communications shared with, or received from, any individual or organization outside the employ of the legislature; and (3) any documents or communications within the House that were generated before the legislation s date of enactment and reflected strictly factual information or were produced by committee, technical, or professional staff for the House (excluding the personal staff of legislators) that reflected opinions, recommendations, or advice (but not comments, requests, or
6 opinions expressed by legislators or their aides in communication with that staff). On the merits, the district court rejected the challenge to eleven of the twelve districts. The plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which issued an opinion on March 1, The Court held that the three-judge federal district court applied the wrong standard with regard to establishing racial predominance. The lower court held that an actual conflict between the enacted plan and the traditional redistricting principles had to be established by the plaintiffs to prove racial predominance. The court would then look to district lines that appeared to deviate from traditional criteria to ascertain whether these deviations were because of racial motivations. The Supreme Court held that this threshold standard of predominance was incorrect. The Court reasserted the controlling standard established in Miller v. Johnson, that challengers may show predominance either through circumstantial evidence of a district s shape and demographics or more direct evidence going to legislative purpose. What is crucial when evaluating predominance is the actual considerations of the legislature for drawing the district lines, not an after-the-fact evaluation of what appears to be district lines that deviate from traditional criteria. The Court s ruling allows the challenge of districts that appear to follow traditional redistricting principles at first glance, but can be shown to have race as the predominant factor. Intent of the legislature is crucial. If evidence is shown that the legislature intended to draw districts based upon racial preferences, then the maps can be rejected. Relevant evidence is not just evidence showing that the districts deviate from traditional principles, but also includes circumstantial evidence that goes towards proving intent. Just because a district doesn t look weird does not mean it s not in violation of the Equal Protection Clause. The Court remanded the case to the district court for reconsideration along these lines.
DRAWING LINES: RACIAL GERRYMANDERING IN BETHUNE- HILL V. VIRGINIA BOARD OF ELECTIONS
DRAWING LINES: RACIAL GERRYMANDERING IN BETHUNE- HILL V. VIRGINIA BOARD OF ELECTIONS SCOTT REED INTRODUCTION The Supreme Court has held that legislative district-drawing merits strict scrutiny when based
More informationLegal & Policy Criteria Governing Establishment of Electoral Districts
Legal & Policy Criteria Governing Establishment of Electoral Districts City of Hemet February 9, 2016 City of Hemet Establishment of Electoral Districts 1 Process: Basic Overview With Goal of Nov. 2016
More informationLegal & Policy Criteria Governing Establishment of Electoral Districts
Legal & Policy Criteria Governing Establishment of Electoral Districts City of Chino April 6, 2016 City of Chino Establishment of Electoral Districts 1 Process: Basic Overview With Goal of Nov. 2016 Elections
More informationState Legislative Redistricting in : Emerging Trends and Issues in Reapportionment By Ronald E. Weber
State Legislative Redistricting in 2001-2002: Emerging Trends and Issues in Reapportionment By Ronald E. Weber This article assesses the progress of the states in redrawing state legislative-district lines
More informationTheodore M. Shaw, Julius L. Chambers Distinguished Professor of Law, University of North Carolina Law School at Chapel Hill
The Supreme Court s Election and Redistricting Law Reconsidered Theodore M. Shaw, Julius L. Chambers Distinguished Professor of Law, University of North Carolina Law School at Chapel Hill The Supreme Court
More informationPartisan Gerrymandering
Partisan Gerrymandering Peter S. Wattson National Conference of State Legislatures Legislative Summit Los Angeles, California August 1, 2018 Partisan Gerrymandering Introduction What is it? How does it
More informationPartisan Gerrymandering
Partisan Gerrymandering Partisan Gerrymandering Peter S. Wattson National Conference of State Legislatures Legislative Summit Introduction P What is it? P How does it work? P What limits might there be?
More informationCase 3:14-cv REP-AWA-BMK Document 146 Filed 04/17/17 Page 1 of 12 PageID# 5723
Case 3:14-cv-00852-REP-AWA-BMK Document 146 Filed 04/17/17 Page 1 of 12 PageID# 5723 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA RICHMOND DIVISION Golden Bethune-Hill, et al., Plaintiffs,
More informationRedrawing the Map: Redistricting Issues in Michigan. Jordon Newton Research Associate Citizens Research Council of Michigan
Redrawing the Map: Redistricting Issues in Michigan Jordon Newton Research Associate Citizens Research Council of Michigan 2 Why Does Redistricting Matter? 3 Importance of Redistricting District maps have
More informationRACIAL GERRYMANDERING
Racial Gerrymandering purposeful drawing of boundaries of electoral districts in such a way that dilutes the vote of racial minorities or fails to provide an opportunity for racial minorities to elect
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA DURHAM DIVISION
Case 1:13-cv-00949 Document 1 Filed 10/24/13 Page 1 of 20 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA DURHAM DIVISION DAVID HARRIS; CHRISTINE BOWSER; and SAMUEL LOVE,
More informationLEGAL ISSUES FOR REDISTRICTING IN INDIANA
LEGAL ISSUES FOR REDISTRICTING IN INDIANA By: Brian C. Bosma http://www.kgrlaw.com/bios/bosma.php William Bock, III http://www.kgrlaw.com/bios/bock.php KROGER GARDIS & REGAS, LLP 111 Monument Circle, Suite
More informationThe 2020 Census, Gerrymandering, and Voter Suppression
February 26, 2019 SPECIAL PRESENTATION The 2020 Census, Gerrymandering, and Voter Suppression ` Jessica Jones Capparell LWVUS Policy and Legislative Affairs Senior Manager League of Women Voters Looking
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division. v. Civil Action No. 3:14cv852 MEMORANDUM OPINION
Case 3:14-cv-00852-REP-AWA-BMK Document 234 Filed 06/26/18 Page 1 of 188 PageID# 8812 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division GOLDEN BETHUNE-HILL, et
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA. TOM SCHEDLER, in his official capacity as The Secretary of State of Louisiana, COMPLAINT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA MAYTEE BUCKLEY, an individual, YVONNE PARMS, an individual, and LESLIE PARMS, an individual, CIVIL ACTION NO.: Plaintiffs VERSUS TOM SCHEDLER,
More informationPaul Smith, Attorney at Law Jenner and Block Washington, DC. Gerry Hebert, Attorney at Law Washington, DC
Paul Smith, Attorney at Law Jenner and Block Washington, DC Gerry Hebert, Attorney at Law Washington, DC The 63rd Annual Meeting of the Southern Legislative Conference August 15, 2009 First the basics:
More informationRedistricting Virginia
With the collection of the 2010 census numbers finished, the Virginia General Assembly is turning its attention to redrawing Virginia s legislative boundaries before the 2011 election cycle. Beginning
More informationCase 2:12-cv RJS-DBP Document 441 Filed 12/21/17 Page 1 of 39 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION
Case 2:12-cv-00039-RJS-DBP Document 441 Filed 12/21/17 Page 1 of 39 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION NAVAJO NATION, a federally recognized Indian tribe, et
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION
Case 2:12-cv-00691-WKW-MHT-WHP Document 372 Filed 10/12/17 Page 1 of 16 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION ALABAMA LEGISLATIVE ) BLACK CAUCUS, et al.,
More informationLegal & Policy Criteria Governing Establishment of Districts
Legal & Policy Criteria Governing Establishment of Districts A Presentation by: Sean Welch Nielsen Merksamer Parrinello Gross & Leoni, LLP to the City of Martinez January 10, 2018 City of Martinez Establishment
More informationRedistricting in Louisiana Past & Present. Regional Educational Presentation Baton Rouge December 15, 2009
Redistricting in Louisiana Past & Present Regional Educational Presentation Baton Rouge December 15, 2009 Why? Article III, Section 6 of the Constitution of La. Apportionment of Congress & the Subsequent
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division. v. Civil Action No. 3:14cv852 MEMORANDUM OPINION
Case 3:14-cv-00852-REP-AWA-BMK Document 361 Filed 02/14/19 Page 1 of 34 PageID# 12120 GOLDEN BETHUNE-HILL, et al., Plaintiffs, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond
More informationLegislative Privilege in 2010s Redistricting Cases
Legislative Privilege in 2010s Redistricting Cases Peter S. Wattson Minnesota Senate Counsel (retired) The following summaries are primarily excerpts from Redistricting Case Summaries 2010- Present, a
More informationAPPORTIONMENT Statement of Position As announced by the State Board, 1966
APPORTIONMENT The League of Women Voters of the United States believes that congressional districts and government legislative bodies should be apportioned substantially on population. The League is convinced
More informationRedistricting: Nuts & Bolts. By Kimball Brace Election Data Services, Inc.
Redistricting: Nuts & Bolts By Kimball Brace Election Data Services, Inc. Reapportionment vs Redistricting What s the difference Reapportionment Allocation of districts to an area US Congressional Districts
More informationTX RACIAL GERRYMANDERING
TX RACIAL GERRYMANDERING https://www.texastribune.org/2018/04/23/texas-redistricting-fight-returns-us-supreme-court/ TX RACIAL GERRYMANDERING https://www.texastribune.org/2018/04/23/texas-redistricting-fight-returns-us-supreme-court/
More informationOverview. League of Women Voters: The Ins and Outs of Redistricting 4/21/2015
Overview League of Women Voters: The Ins and Outs of Redistricting April 18, 2015 Redistricting: Process of drawing electoral district boundaries (this occurs at every level of government from members
More informationCase 3:13-cv REP-LO-AKD Document 145 Filed 04/13/15 Page 1 of 21 PageID# 4206
Case 3:13-cv-00678-REP-LO-AKD Document 145 Filed 04/13/15 Page 1 of 21 PageID# 4206 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division DAWN CURRY PAGE, et al., )
More informationPARTISAN GERRYMANDERING
10 TH ANNUAL COMMON CAUSE INDIANA CLE SEMINAR DECEMBER 2, 2016 PARTISAN GERRYMANDERING NORTH CAROLINA -MARYLAND Emmet J. Bondurant Bondurant Mixson & Elmore LLP 1201 W Peachtree Street NW Suite 3900 Atlanta,
More information16 Ohio U.S. Congressional Districts: What s wrong with this picture?
Gerrymandering Gerrymandering happens when the party in power draws district lines to rig elections to favor one political party over another. Both Republicans and Democrats have done it. Gerrymandering
More informationCITIZEN ADVOCACY CENTER
CITIZEN ADVOCACY CENTER Congressional Redistricting: Understanding How the Lines are Drawn LESSON PLAN AND ACTIVITIES All rights reserved. No part of this lesson plan may be reproduced in any form or by
More informationThe Journey From Census To The United States Supreme Court Linda J. Shorey
PENNSYLVANIA S CONGRESSIONAL REDISTRICTING SAGA The Journey From Census To The United States Supreme Court Linda J. Shorey Pa. s House Delegation 1992-2000 During the 90s Pennsylvania had 21 seats in the
More informationRedistricting in Louisiana Past & Present. Regional Educational Presentation Monroe February 2, 2010
Redistricting in Louisiana Past & Present Regional Educational Presentation Monroe February 2, 2010 To get more information regarding the Louisiana House of Representatives redistricting process go to:
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
No. 14-1504 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States ROBERT J. WITTMAN, ET AL., v. GLORIA PERSONHUBALLAH, ET AL., Appellants, Appellees. On Appeal From The United States District Court for The Eastern
More informationReading Between the Lines Congressional and State Legislative Redistricting
Reading Between the Lines their Reform in Iowa, Arizona and California and Ideas for Change in New Jersey Reading Between the Lines Purposes of the Study 1. Prepared for the Eagleton Institute of Politics
More informationCensus Bureau ships North Carolina's local census data to the governor and legislative leaders.
2011 March 1 June 17 July 27 July 28 July 28 Census Bureau ships North Carolina's local census data to the governor and legislative leaders. Republicans release redistricting proposal for Voting Rights
More informationImplementing Trustee Area Elections: Procedural & Substantive Considerations
Implementing Trustee Area Elections: Procedural & Substantive Considerations A Presentation by: Chris Skinnell Nielsen Merksamer Parrinello Gross & Leoni, LLP to the San Diego County Board of Education
More informationCongressional Redistricting and the Voting Rights Act: A Legal Overview
Congressional Redistricting and the Voting Rights Act: A Legal Overview L. Paige Whitaker Legislative Attorney April 2, 2013 CRS Report for Congress Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress Congressional
More informationCongressional Redistricting and the Voting Rights Act: A Legal Overview
Congressional Redistricting and the Voting Rights Act: A Legal Overview L. Paige Whitaker Legislative Attorney August 30, 2013 CRS Report for Congress Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress Congressional
More informationThe Current State of Election Law in the United States
Washington and Lee Journal of Civil Rights and Social Justice Volume 23 Issue 2 Article 5 4-1-2017 The Current State of Election Law in the United States Mark Rush Washington and Lee University, rushm@wlu.edu
More informationCase 3:14-cv REP-GBL-BMK Document 73 Filed 06/19/15 Page 1 of 33 PageID# 844
Case 3:14-cv-00852-REP-GBL-BMK Document 73 Filed 06/19/15 Page 1 of 33 PageID# 844 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division GOLDEN BETHUNE-HILL, et al.,
More informationArizona Independent Redistricting Commission Legal Overview. July 8, 2011 By: Joseph Kanefield and Mary O Grady
Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission Legal Overview July 8, 2011 By: Joseph Kanefield and Mary O Grady TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE I. ARIZONA CONSTITUTION...2 II. INDEPENDENT REDISTRICTING COMMISSION...2
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA DURHAM DIVISION Civil Action No. 1:13-CV-00949
Case 1:13-cv-00949-WO-JEP Document 76 Filed 06/23/14 Page 1 of 37 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA DURHAM DIVISION Civil Action No. 1:13-CV-00949 DAVID HARRIS;
More informationcause of action in challenging an apportionment plan, id. at 237).
Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause Racial Gerrymandering Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama Following the Voting Rights Act of 1965 1 (VRA), Congress required a number of states particularly
More informationNew York Redistricting Memo Analysis
New York Redistricting Memo Analysis March 1, 2010 This briefing memo explains the current redistricting process in New York, describes some of the current reform proposals being considered, and outlines
More informationREDISTRICTING IN LOUISIANA
REDISTRICTING IN LOUISIANA Committee on House & Governmental Affairs Committee on Senate & Governmental Affairs Monroe March 1, 2011 Contact Information To receive a hard copy of the presentation or additional
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
2:17-cv-14148-DPH-SDD Doc # 7 Filed 12/27/17 Pg 1 of 7 Pg ID 60 LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF MICHIGAN, et al., UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION v. Plaintiffs, RUTH
More informationTestimony of FairVote The Center for Voting and Democracy Jack Santucci, Program for Representative Government. October 16, 2006
Testimony of FairVote The Center for Voting and Democracy Jack Santucci, Program for Representative Government Given in writing to the Assembly Standing Committee on Governmental Operations and Assembly
More informationCOSSA Colloquium on Social and Behavioral Science and Public Policy
COSSA Colloquium on Social and Behavioral Science and Public Policy Changes Regarding Race in America : The Voting Rights Act and Minority communities John A. Garcia Director, Resource Center for Minority
More informationMarch 1 Census Bureau ships North Carolina's local census data to the governor and legislative leaders. June 17 Republicans release redistricting
2011 March 1 Census Bureau ships North Carolina's local census data to the governor and legislative leaders. June 17 Republicans release redistricting proposal for Voting Rights Act districts. July 27
More informationRedistricting and North Carolina Elections Law
Robert Joyce, UNC School of Government Public Law for the Public s Lawyers November 1, 2018 Redistricting and North Carolina Elections Law The past three years have been the hottest period in redistricting
More informationREVEALING THE GEOPOLITICAL GEOMETRY THROUGH SAMPLING JONATHAN MATTINGLY (+ THE TEAM) DUKE MATH
REVEALING THE GEOPOLITICAL GEOMETRY THROUGH SAMPLING JONATHAN MATTINGLY (+ THE TEAM) DUKE MATH gerrymander manipulate the boundaries of an electoral constituency to favor one party or class. achieve (a
More informationNATIONAL ACTION NETWORK ISSUE BRIEF. S.1945 and H.R. 3899
NATIONAL ACTION NETWORK ISSUE BRIEF S.1945 and H.R. 3899 VOTING RIGHTS AMENDMENT ACT OF 2014 THE BILL: S. 1945 and H.R. 3899: The Voting Rights Act of 2014 - Summary: to amend the Voting Rights Act of
More informationCitizens Union and the League of Women Voters of New York State
Citizens Union and the League of Women Voters of New York State 10 Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) on the Proposed Constitutional Amendment to Reform Redistricting 1. What will the proposed constitutional
More informationCongressional Redistricting and the Voting Rights Act: A Legal Overview
Congressional Redistricting and the Voting Rights Act: A Legal Overview L. Paige Whitaker Legislative Attorney February 24, 2014 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov R42482 Summary The Constitution
More informationCase 3:14-cv REP-AWA-BMK Document 157 Filed 05/16/17 Page 1 of 10 PageID# 5908
Case 3:14-cv-00852-REP-AWA-BMK Document 157 Filed 05/16/17 Page 1 of 10 PageID# 5908 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA RICHMOND DIVISION Golden Bethune-Hill, et al., Plaintiffs,
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
No. 16-1161 In The Supreme Court of the United States Beverly R. Gill, et al., v. William Whitford, et al., Appellants, Appellees. On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District
More informationCase 3:14-cv REP-AWA-BMK Document 230 Filed 10/30/17 Page 1 of 56 PageID# 8640
Case 3:14-cv-00852-REP-AWA-BMK Document 230 Filed 10/30/17 Page 1 of 56 PageID# 8640 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA RICHMOND DIVISION GOLDEN BETHUNE-HILL, et al.,
More information1161 (U.S. Mar. 24, 2017). 6 Id. at *1. On January 27, 2017, the court ordered the defendants to enact a new districting
ELECTION LAW PARTISAN GERRYMANDERING DISTRICT COURT OFFERS NEW STANDARD TO HOLD WISCONSIN REDIS- TRICTING SCHEME UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Whitford v. Gill, No. 15-cv-421-bbc, 2016 WL 6837229 (W.D. Wis. Nov. 21,
More informationIn the Supreme Court of the United States
No. 17A790 In the Supreme Court of the United States STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, et al., Applicants, V. SANDRA LITTLE COVINGTON, et al., Respondents. MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMICUS BRIEF, MOTION FOR LEAVE
More informationFourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause Racial Gerrymandering Cooper v. Harris
Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause Racial Gerrymandering Cooper v. Harris Regardless of one s position on the role that race should play in modern politics, the racial polarization of American
More informationCharter Review Commission
Charter Review Commission The Town of Flower Mound Single Member Districts and the Town Council November 19, 2013 Presented by: Sydney Falk Bickerstaff Heath Delgado Acosta LLP Austin, Texas Issues Redistricting
More informationNo. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. MARGARET DICKSON, et al., ROBERT RUCHO, et al.,
No. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES MARGARET DICKSON, et al., Petitioners v. ROBERT RUCHO, et al., Respondents On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of North Carolina BRIEF
More informationILLINOIS (status quo)
ILLINOIS KEY POINTS: The state legislature draws congressional districts, subject only to federal constitutional and statutory limitations. The legislature also has the first opportunity to draw state
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
Case 1:15-cv-00399-TDS-JEP Document 180 Filed 07/31/17 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA SANDRA LITTLE COVINGTON, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) v. )
More informationAssessment of Voting Rights Progress in Jurisdictions Covered Under Section Five of the Voting Rights Act
Assessment of Voting Rights Progress in Jurisdictions Covered Under Section Five of the Voting Rights Act Submitted to the United s Senate Committee on the Judiciary May 17, 2006 American Enterprise Institute
More informationUpdate of Federal and Kansas Election Law Mark Johnson. May 17-18, 2018 University of Kansas School of Law
Update of Federal and Kansas Election Law Mark Johnson May 17-18, 2018 University of Kansas School of Law RECENT FEDERAL AND KANSAS DEVELOPMENTS IN ELECTION LAW, VOTING RIGHTS, AND CAMPAIGN FINANCE MARK
More informationAN AMENDMENT TO ESTABLISH THE ARKANSAS CITIZENS' REDISTRICTING COMMISSION
Popular Name AN AMENDMENT TO ESTABLISH THE ARKANSAS CITIZENS' REDISTRICTING COMMISSION Ballot Title THIS IS AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION THAT CHANGES THE MANNER FOR THE DECENNIAL REDISTRICTING
More informationUnited States House of Representatives
United States House of Representatives Field Hearing on Restore the Vote: A Public Forum on Voting Rights Hosted by Representative Terri Sewell Birmingham, Alabama March 5, 2016 Testimony of Spencer Overton
More informationCapstone Prospectus Julia Jackson, PUAD 5361 September 2, 2015
Capstone Prospectus Julia Jackson, PUAD 5361 September 2, 2015 Project Introduction The National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) "provides research, technical assistance and opportunities for policymakers
More informationSTATEMENT OF WADE HENDERSON, PRESIDENT & CEO THE LEADERSHIP CONFERENCE ON CIVIL AND HUMAN RIGHTS
STATEMENT OF WADE HENDERSON, PRESIDENT & CEO THE LEADERSHIP CONFERENCE ON CIVIL AND HUMAN RIGHTS FROM SELMA TO SHELBY COUNTY: WORKING TOGETHER TO RESTORE THE PROTECTIONS OF THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT SENATE
More informationRedistricting in Michigan
Dr. Martha Sloan of the Copper Country League of Women Voters Redistricting in Michigan Should Politicians Choose their Voters? Politicians are drawing their own voting maps to manipulate elections and
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA NO. 1:15-cv-00399
Case 1:15-cv-00399-TDS-JEP Document 114 Filed 05/06/16 Page 1 of 16 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA NO. 1:15-cv-00399 SANDRA LITTLE COVINGTON, et al., V. PLAINTIFFS,
More informationCase 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document 1613 Filed 01/29/19 Page 1 of 13
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1613 Filed 01/29/19 Page 1 of 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION SHANNON PEREZ, et al., Plaintiffs, and
More informationMoreover, it is hard to understand how plaintiffs could be irreparably harmed should the
Case 1:13-cv-00949-WO-JEP Document 29 Filed 01/17/14 Page 1 of 42 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA DURHAM DIVISION Civil Action No. 1:13-CV-00949 DAVID HARRIS;
More informationTexas Redistricting : A few lessons learned
Texas Redistricting 2011-12: A few lessons learned NCSL Annual Meeting August 7, 2012 David R. Hanna Senior Legislative Counsel Texas Legislative Council 1 Legal challenges for redistricting plans enacted
More informationIn the Supreme Court of the United States
NO. 15-680 In the Supreme Court of the United States GOLDEN BETHUNE-HILL, et al., Appellants, v. VIRGINIA STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS, et al., Appellees. On Appeal from the United States District Court for
More informationNo In The Supreme Court of the United States
No. 14-1504 In The Supreme Court of the United States -------------------------- --------------------------- ROBERT J. WITTMAN, BOB GOODLATTE, RANDY FORBES, MORGAN GRIFFITH, SCOTT RIGELL, ROBERT HURT,
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
No. 18-422 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States ROBERT A. RUCHO, et al., v. COMMON CAUSE, et al., Appellants, Appellees. On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of
More informationCase 3:14-cv REP-GBL-BMK Document 74 Filed 06/19/15 Page 1 of 36 PageID# 877
Case 3:14-cv-00852-REP-GBL-BMK Document 74 Filed 06/19/15 Page 1 of 36 PageID# 877 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA RICHMOND DIVISION GOLDEN BETHUNE-HILL, et al., v. Plaintiffs,
More informationGOLDEN BETHUNE-HILL, ET AL., Appellants, v. VIRGINIA STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS, ET AL., Appellees.
No. 15-680 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States GOLDEN BETHUNE-HILL, ET AL., Appellants, v. VIRGINIA STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS, ET AL., Appellees. On Appeal from the United States District Court for
More informationv. Civil Action No. 3:13cv678
Case 3:13-cv-00678-REP-LO-AD Document 299 Filed 01/07/16 Page 1 of 44 PageID# 6525 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division GLORIA PERSONHUBALLAH, et al.,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA NO. 1:13-CV PLAINTIFFS TRIAL BRIEF
Case 1:13-cv-00949-WO-JEP Document 109 Filed 09/21/15 Page 1 of 49 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA NO. 1:13-CV-00949 DAVID HARRIS and CHRISTINE BOWSER, v. Plaintiffs,
More informationRedistricting Matters
Redistricting Matters Protect Your Vote Common Cause Minnesota (CCMN) is a nonpartisan, grassroots organization dedicated to restoring the core values of American democracy, reinventing an open, honest
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS PLAINTIFFS OPENING STATEMENT
Case 1:16-cv-01164-WO-JEP Document 96 Filed 10/13/17 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA COMMON CAUSE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ROBERT A. RUCHO, et
More informationRedistricting & the Quantitative Anatomy of a Section 2 Voting Rights Case
Redistricting & the Quantitative Anatomy of a Section 2 Voting Rights Case Megan A. Gall, PhD, GISP Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law mgall@lawyerscommittee.org @DocGallJr Fundamentals Decennial
More informationIn The Supreme Court of the United States
No. 14-232 ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- --------------------------------- WESLEY W. HARRIS,
More informationREDISTRICTING IN LOUISIANA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION. Educational Presentation December 15, 2010
REDISTRICTING IN LOUISIANA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Educational Presentation December 15, 2010 Overview Introduction What Is Redistricting? Who Is Redistricted? Why Redistrict? Legal Issues State Law
More informationAppellate Case: Document: Date Filed: 04/30/2018 Page: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
Appellate Case: 18-4005 Document: 01019983885 Date Filed: 04/30/2018 Page: 1 18-4005 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT NAVAJO NATION, a federally recognized Indian tribe, et al., v.
More informationIn the Supreme Court of the United States
No. 14-1504 In the Supreme Court of the United States ROBERT J. WITTMAN, ET AL., APPELLANTS, V. GLORIA PERSONHUBALLAH, ET AL., APPELLEES. On Appeal From The United States District Court For The Eastern
More informationHouse Apportionment 2012: States Gaining, Losing, and on the Margin
House Apportionment 2012: States Gaining, Losing, and on the Margin Royce Crocker Specialist in American National Government August 23, 2013 CRS Report for Congress Prepared for Members and Committees
More informationAre We There Yet? The Roberts Court, Race & Post Integration America: A Selective View of Three Supreme Court Cases
Are We There Yet? The Roberts Court, Race & Post Integration America: A Selective View of Three Supreme Court Cases Francisco M. Negrón, Jr. Associate Executive Director & General Counsel National School
More informationCase 2:17-cv MMB Document 83 Filed 11/16/17 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Case 2:17-cv-04392-MMB Document 83 Filed 11/16/17 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA LOUIS AGRE, WILLIAM EWING, FLOYD MONTGOMERY, JOY MONTGOMERY, RAYMAN
More informationRealistic Guidelines: Making it Work
Realistic Guidelines: Making it Work Jeffrey M. Wice Special Counsel to the Majority New York State Senate State Guidelines Population Deviations 0-2% Overall deviation Montana 2% 3-5% Overall deviation
More informationShould Politicians Choose Their Voters? League of Women Voters of MI Education Fund
Should Politicians Choose Their Voters? 1 Politicians are drawing their own voting maps to manipulate elections and keep themselves and their party in power. 2 3 -The U.S. Constitution requires that the
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA NO. 1:13-CV-00949
Case 1:13-cv-00949-WO-JEP Document 70-1 Filed 06/02/14 Page 1 of 40 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA NO. 1:13-CV-00949 DAVID HARRIS; CHRISTINE BOWSER; and SAMUEL
More informationWASHINGTON BUREAU NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE
WASHINGTON BUREAU NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE 1156 15 TH STREET, NW SUITE 915 WASHINGTON, DC 20005 P (202) 463-2940 F (202) 463-2953 E-MAIL: WASHINGTONBUREAU@NAACPNET.ORG
More informationLeaders Guide to LWVUS Program Planning
Leaders Guide to LWVUS Program Planning 2018-2020 Timeline for 2018-2020 LWVUS Program Planning November 2017 March 1, 2018 April 2018 June 2018 Program Planning Materials sent to Leagues Deadline for
More informationELECTIONS AND CAMPAIGN FINANCE
ELECTIONS AND CAMPAIGN FINANCE Kansas and Federal Legal Developments, 2014-15 Mark P. Johnson Kansas City May 29, 2015 2 Developments in 2014-15 Highlights of Kansas and Federal changes and updates Election
More informationLocal Opportunities for Redistricting Reform
Local Opportunities for Redistricting Reform March 2016 Research commissioned by Wisconsin Voices for Our Democracy 2020 Coalition Introduction The process of redistricting has long-lasting impacts on
More information