Drawing Maps That Will Stand Up in Court

Similar documents
Redistricting in Louisiana Past & Present. Regional Educational Presentation Baton Rouge December 15, 2009

Partisan Gerrymandering

Redistricting in Louisiana Past & Present. Regional Educational Presentation Monroe February 2, 2010

Partisan Gerrymandering

Paul Smith, Attorney at Law Jenner and Block Washington, DC. Gerry Hebert, Attorney at Law Washington, DC

House Apportionment 2012: States Gaining, Losing, and on the Margin

REDISTRICTING IN LOUISIANA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION. Educational Presentation December 15, 2010

REDISTRICTING IN LOUISIANA

ST. TAMMANY PARISH SCHOOL BOARD 2010 CENSUS/2014 ELECTION REDISTRICTING DECEMBER 1, Presentation by REDISTRICTING L.L.C.

State Legislative Redistricting in : Emerging Trends and Issues in Reapportionment By Ronald E. Weber

Regulating Elections: Districts /252 Fall 2012

TX RACIAL GERRYMANDERING

Regulating Elections: Districts /252 Fall 2008

Charter Review Commission

Testimony of FairVote The Center for Voting and Democracy Jack Santucci, Program for Representative Government. October 16, 2006

REDISTRICTING REDISTRICTING 50 STATE GUIDE TO 50 STATE GUIDE TO HOUSE SEATS SEATS SENATE SEATS SEATS WHO DRAWS THE DISTRICTS?

Redistricting Virginia

Cooper v. Harris, 581 U.S. (2017).

at New York University School of Law A 50 state guide to redistricting

LEGAL ISSUES FOR REDISTRICTING IN INDIANA

Redistricting 101 Why Redistrict?

Texas Redistricting: Rules of Engagement in a Nutshell

RACIAL GERRYMANDERING

PARTISAN GERRYMANDERING

Redistricting & the Quantitative Anatomy of a Section 2 Voting Rights Case

Legal & Policy Criteria Governing Establishment of Districts

Overview. League of Women Voters: The Ins and Outs of Redistricting 4/21/2015

How to Draw Redistricting Plans. That Will Stand Up in Court

Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission Legal Overview. July 8, 2011 By: Joseph Kanefield and Mary O Grady

The Journey From Census To The United States Supreme Court Linda J. Shorey

Texas Redistricting : A few lessons learned

United States House of Representatives Plan - Special Masters - October 14, 2011 Population Report

CITIZEN ADVOCACY CENTER. Congressional Redistricting What is redistricting and why does it matter? A Moderated Discussion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA NO. 1:16-CV-1026 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) INTRODUCTION

GIS in Redistricting Jack Dohrman, GIS Analyst Nebraska Legislature Legislative Research Office

Legislative Privilege in 2010s Redistricting Cases

City of Redlands Introduction to 2016 Districting

New Developments in the Meaning of the Voting Rights Act. Nate Persily Beekman Professor of Law and Political Science Columbia Law School

WHERE WE STAND.. ON REDISTRICTING REFORM

Submitted by: ASSEMBLY MEMBERS HALL, TRAIN!

REFERENCE ACTION ANALYST STAFF DIRECTOR SUMMARY ANALYSIS

Background Information on Redistricting

How to Draw Redistricting Plans. That Will Stand Up in Court. Contents

House Apportionment 2012: States Gaining, Losing, and on the Margin

Legal & Policy Criteria Governing Establishment of Electoral Districts

Sweetwater Union High School District Demographic and Districting Introduction

New York Redistricting Memo Analysis

Citizens Union and the League of Women Voters of New York State

GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA SESSION 2005 H 1 HOUSE BILL 1448

Gerry Hebert, Executive Director Campaign Legal Center Washington, DC. The 31st COGEL Annual Conference December 6-9, 2009 Scottsdale, AZ

Congressional Redistricting and the Voting Rights Act: A Legal Overview

Regulating Elections: Districts /252 Spring 2015

Redrawing the Map: Redistricting Issues in Michigan. Jordon Newton Research Associate Citizens Research Council of Michigan

In the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas

The Next Swing Region: Reapportionment and Redistricting in the Intermountain West

Redistricting in Michigan

Legal & Policy Criteria Governing Establishment of Electoral Districts

Reapportionment. In 1991, reapportionment and redistricting were the most open, democratic, and racially

ILLINOIS (status quo)

APPORTIONMENT Statement of Position As announced by the State Board, 1966

Congressional Redistricting and the Voting Rights Act: A Legal Overview

Congressional Redistricting and the Voting Rights Act: A Legal Overview

City of Rancho Cucamonga Presentation of Draft Maps

NEW YORK STATE SENATE PUBLIC MEETING ON REDISTRICTING DECEMBER 14, 2010

Case 5:11-cv Document 1 Filed 06/17/11 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION

Implementing Trustee Area Elections: Procedural & Substantive Considerations

Redistricting: Nuts & Bolts. By Kimball Brace Election Data Services, Inc.

H 7749 S T A T E O F R H O D E I S L A N D

ONE STEP FORWARD OR TWO STEPS BACK? ABRAMS v. JOHNSON AND THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT OF 1965

The Very Picture of What s Wrong in D.C. : Daniel Webster and the American Community Survey

Census Bureau ships North Carolina's local census data to the governor and legislative leaders.

City of Oakland 2013 Redistricting Town Hall forum

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA DURHAM DIVISION

Case 1:17-cv LJA Document 1 Filed 06/14/17 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ALBANY DIVISION

Claremont McKenna College April 21, 2010 Douglas Johnson Ian Johnson David Meyer

AP UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT AND POLITICS 2008 SCORING GUIDELINES

When Can a Minority Group State a Vote-Dilution Claim Under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act? by Theodore M. Shaw

Should Politicians Choose Their Voters? League of Women Voters of MI Education Fund

Citizens Union and the League of Women Voters of New York State

Congress. The Backbone of Democracy

activists handbook to

Defining the Gerrymander

2010 CENSUS POPULATION REAPPORTIONMENT DATA

REDISTRICTING commissions

MN LET THE PEOPLE VOTE COALITION INFORMATION SHEETS ON SOME PROPOSED CAUCUS RESOLUTIONS FOR FEBRUARY 6, 2018 CAUCUSES JANUARY 22, 2018

Redistricting Matters

The Original Gerrymander

Reading Between the Lines Congressional and State Legislative Redistricting

GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA SESSION 2017 S 1 SENATE BILL 702. Short Title: Independent Redistricting Commission. (Public)

3 2fl17 (0:9901. Colorado Secretary of State Be it Enacted by the People ofthe State ofcolorado:

Redistricting in Illinois: A Comparative View On State Redistricting

A Fair Division Solution to the Problem of Redistricting

No. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. MARGARET DICKSON, et al., ROBERT RUCHO, et al.,

H.B. 69 Feb 13, 2019 HOUSE PRINCIPAL CLERK

Introduction: The Right to Vote

CITIZEN ADVOCACY CENTER

CITIZENS REDISTRICTING COMMISSION PROPOSAL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA THIRD EXTRA SESSION 2016 HOUSE BILL DRH30015-LU-3 (12/13)

NATIONAL ACTION NETWORK ISSUE BRIEF. S.1945 and H.R. 3899

Committee on Redistricting January 18, 2011

Transcription:

Drawing Maps That Will Stand Up in Court Peter S. Wattson Senate Counsel Secretary of the Senate (Legislative) State of Minnesota P Reapportionment P Redistricting Definitions Providence, Rhode Island September 26, 2010 2 Why Redistrict? Congressional Reapportionment 2010 P Reapportionment of Congressional Seats -1-1 -1-1 -2-1 -1-1 -1 3 Election Data Services, Inc. 2008-09 Trend Extended to 2010 December 23, 2009 +4-1 Why Redistrict? The Facts of Life Equal Population PPopulation Shifts within State PAbsolute Numbers are Less Important than Relative Numbers P Growth Slower than Average < Area Will Grow P Growth Faster than Average < Area Will Shrink 5 6

The Facts of Life Gerrymandering PPacking P Fracturing PCreating a Gerrymander 8 The Need for Limits Limits on Gerrymanders PWho draws the plans PData that may be used PReview by others PDistricts that result 9 Who Draws the Plans PNo legislators PNo appointees of a legislator PNo public officials PNo politicians PMinority party represented PEqual number from majority & minority PNeutral tie-breaker 10 Limits on Gerrymanders Data that May be Used PNot party registration PNot election results PNot socio-economic data PNot incumbent residences Limits on Gerrymanders P Public hearings P Preliminary plans PJudicial review Review by Others 11 12

Limits on Gerrymanders Districts that Result The Census P Populations equal PMinorities fairly represented P Territory contiguous P Territory compact PHouse districts nested in Senate districts PPolitical subdivisions not divided PCommunities of interest not divided PPolitically competitive 13 PUse Official Census Bureau Population Counts 14 Equal Population Congressional Districts PMeasuring Population Equality Among Districts < Ideal Population < Deviation < Average Deviation < Overall Range PStrict Equality PUnless Necessary to Achieve Some Legitimate State Objective < Preserve Political Subdivisions < Contiguous Territory < Compact < Preserve Communities of Interest < Preserve the Cores of Prior Districts < Avoid Contests Between Incumbents 15 16 Legislative Districts PAn Overall Range of Less than 10 Percent < Unless Proof of Intentional Discrimination PUnless Necessary to Achieve Some Rational State Policy < Affording Representation to Political Subdivisions < Other State Policies Racial and Language Minorities 17

Data on Race and Language PNon-Hispanic White PNon-Hispanic Black + NH Black & White PNH Asian + NH Asian & White PNH Amer. Indian + NH Amer. Indian & White PNH Pacific Islander + NH Pac. Is. & White PNH Some Other Race PNH Other Multiple Race PHispanic 19 Voting Rights Act 2 PNo Discriminatory Effect PThornburg v. Gingles - Three Preconditions < Minority Population Sufficiently Large and Geographically Compact < Minority is Politically Cohesive < Bloc Voting by White Majority Usually Defeats Minority s Preferred Candidate PTotality of the Circumstances PDraw Districts the Minority has a Fair Chance to Win 20 Voting Rights Act 5 Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment P Covered Jurisdictions P Preclearance < Justice Department < U.S. District Court for District of Columbia PDo Not Regress < Ability to Elect a Candidate of Choice PDo Not Intend to Discriminate PYou Need Not Maximize the Number of Minority Districts 21 PYou May Consider Race in Drawing Districts PAvoid Drawing a Racial Gerrymander 22 Racial Gerrymanders North Carolina Congressional District 12-1992 PDon t Draw Districts With Bizarre Shapes 23 Election Data Services Inc.. 24

Reapportionment is one area in which appearances do matter. Redistricting is one area in which appearances do matter North Carolina Congressional District 12-1992 Racial Gerrymanders PDraw Districts that are Reasonably Compact Election Data Services Inc.. 27 28 Texas Congressional District 30-1992 Texas Congressional District 30-1996 29 30

Texas Congressional District 18-1992 Texas Congressional District 18-1996 31 32 Texas Congressional District 29-1992 Texas Congressional District 29-1996 33 34 Louisiana Congressional District 4-1992 Louisiana Congressional District 4-1994 35 36

Louisiana Congressional District 4-1996 Florida Congressional District 3-1992 37 Election Data Services Inc. 38 Florida Congressional District 3-1996 North Carolina Congressional District 12-1997 39 40 North Carolina Congressional District 12-1998 North Carolina Congressional District 12-2000 (1997) 41 42

Racial Gerrymanders Georgia Congressional District 11-1992 Atlanta PDon t Let Race Be Your Dominant Motive Augusta 43 Savannah 44 Georgia Racial Gerrymanders Congressional District 4-1996 PDon t Use Race as a Proxy for Political Affiliation 45 46 Traditional Districting Principles PContiguous Territory PCompact PPreserve Political Subdivisions PPreserve Communities of Interest PProtect Incumbents < Preserve Cores of Prior Districts < Avoid Contests Between Incumbents PNest House Districts within Senate Districts Strict Scrutiny PA Compelling Governmental Interest PNarrowly Tailored to Achieve that Interest < Remedying Past Discrimination < Avoiding Retrogression Under VRA 5 < Avoiding a Violation of VRA 2 47 48

Illinois Congressional District 4-1992 Partisan Gerrymandering 49 Partisan Gerrymandering PA justiciable Issue < Davis v. Bandemer (1986) PCan it Be Proved? < Vieth v. Jubelier (2004) < LULAC v. Perry (2006) Federalism in Redistricting 51 The Minnesota Experience PLegislature enacts a legislative plan (1991) PFederal court enjoins state court (Dec. 5) PState court corrects the legislative plan - Cotlow v. Growe (Dec. 9) PU.S. Supreme Court vacates federal court s injunction (Jan. 10, 1992) PFederal court enjoins Secretary of State (Feb. 19, 1992) PU.S. Supreme Court reverses federal court 53 (1993) Federalism in Redistricting PFederal Court Must Defer to State Court PFederal Court May Not Directly Review State Court Decision PPlan Approved by State Court Subject to Collateral Attack in Federal Court PFederal Court Must Defer to State Remedies 54

Drawing Maps that Will Stand Up in Court Peter S. Wattson Senate Counsel Secretary of the Senate (Legislative) State of Minnesota www.senate.leg.state.mn.us/departments/scr/redist/draw/draw.pdf