More chatter about a Dem redraw of CD lines in CA if SCOTUS tanks AZ commission

[Skill and Chance]

Nothing really of any great moment, as opposed to speculation, in this article.  I strongly doubt it will happen myself. It is not as if the Dems are in the hunt to take over the House anyway.

Frankly, with net losses of House seats here in 2014, I'm not sure where else they can gain. The Republican Party here has hit rock bottom. It would take some serious gerrymandering to even gain one more seat.

BTW, Democrats can stop their faux outrage about gerrymandered districts if they plan to do the same thing. Considering Illinois and Maryland have some of the most obviously gerrymandered districts in the country.....

I'm not entirely convinced the court will overturn independent commissions.  But if they do, it's a tragic setback for democracy and state's rights. 

I also strongly hope independent commissions are upheld.  That having been said, you underestimate the pressure that Democratic legislators would be under if Arizona moves to destroy another 3 competitive seats on an already horrifically skewed House playing field nationally.  And as far as additional gains go, a map with 49 >60% Obama 2008 districts has been shown to be technically possible.  A 44D/9R map that flips an additional 5 districts would be almost trivial compared to what was done in PA, OH, etc.   

[Skill and Chance]

Great explanation above Jimtex. Thanks so much.

That's all true regarding the referendum process.  It's worth noting that AZ also has the referendum and a state supreme court that seems highly sympathetic to the commission.  Shouldn't we expect AZ Dems to pursue the same strategy as the CA GOP if commissions are struck down?

[Skill and Chance]

To me, it sounds like the legislature has a more explicit role in AZ than in CA.  They get to directly pick 80% of the commission.  Also, doesn't any legal challenge carry the risk of a court ruling that there is no legal map and no time left, therefore 2016 has to be done at-large?  That would likely mean a Republican sweep of AZ or a (more consequential) Democratic sweep of CA. 

[Skill and Chance]

The other possibility, of course, is that there may be some interesting ballot measures in the very next election. Gerrymandering might become fashionable

You mean making the 49 60% Obama districts map a 2016/18 proposition of its own?  That would be hilarious, but I have to think it would never pass.  Then again, Maryland voters upheld their map by a wide margin in a 2012 referendum.

More likely would be new initiative in both states for Washington style commissions where the state legislature picks all of the members, but they are evenly split by party, and they have to make a deal. 

This all assumes that the Court doesn't strike down the entire initiative/referendum process on anything related to redistricting, of course.

[Skill and Chance]

The other possibility, of course, is that there may be some interesting ballot measures in the very next election. Gerrymandering might become fashionable

You mean making the 49 60% Obama districts map a 2016/18 proposition of its own?  That would be hilarious, but I have to think it would never pass.  Then again, Maryland voters upheld their map by a wide margin in a 2012 referendum.

More likely would be new initiative in both states for Washington style commissions where the state legislature picks all of the members, but they are evenly split by party, and they have to make a deal. 

This all assumes that the Court doesn't strike down the entire initiative/referendum process on anything related to redistricting, of course.

What I mean is that framing could be important. If the SCOTUS decision in AZ case is framed as partisan, then the partisan political response is possible - probably, in fact. At present Dems increasingly feel (correctly or not) that they are being screwed by the gerrymanders in Republican-controlled state. That CA (the largest state, and the one they have control of) actively prohibits gerrymanders, might start looking as stupidity, rather than virtue. And the state has a sufficient Dem preponderance that, who knows, abolishing the virtuous stupidity might actually pass.

Even in a scenario where Prop 20 was to do all 53 seats CA-AL, it was somehow upheld in court, and Dems swept in 2012, the House would still have been 219R/216D.  Now, a lot more could have gotten done in 2013 in that world which may have made Obama more popular, but that shows how entrenched the House GOP is.  A map that flips 5 more seats in CA would matter only if one of the big state GOP gerrymanders backfires (probably VA or PA).  Speaking of which, I wonder if Fair Districts Florida is now also at risk and we end up with a 21R/6D map there?  I would think it's safe because it just imposes rules and the legislature still draws?   

[Skill and Chance]

There will also be a decision that the districting standards added by Proposition 20 in 2010 are also valid. 

Not lawfully.  You have just explained the motivation for the legislative decisions, which is clearly illegal.

It is quite possible to make several CA districts difficult for Republicans without making OBVIOUS violations of Prop. 20. That some guy on the Atlas made those statements will not be relevant

Presumably you (as the legislature surrogate) are going to seek a declaratory judgment that Proposition 11 (2008) and Proposition (2010) as they apply to congressional districting are null.   How long will that take?

Proposition 11 (2008) set new substantive standards for congressional districting, while leaving actual line drawing in the hands of the legislature.  In that sense, it is similar to the redistricting procedures in California.  If the courts in California were to overturn Proposition 11 as applied to congressional districting, you will have a conflict with another appeals court.  The Supreme Court will want to weigh in to refine the meaning of their decision in the Arizona case.

Proposition 11 (2008) also set new procedural rules for how the legislature conducts congressional redistricting, including coordination with the redistricting commission.  It also provided a more open process than the legislature is accustomed to.  In particular it does not permit communication with legislators outside public hearings.  But if you challenge these rules, and they are overturned, you are again in conflict with the Florida decisions.

Proposition 20 (2010) took congressional districting out of the hands of the legislature.  It also set a new substantive standard, outlawing political gerrymandering.  What was notable was about Proposition 11 was that it forbade political gerrymandering for legislative districting, but not for congressional districting.

At the end of the day, you will get a concession that only the legislature can draw congressional districts, but that standards for how that is done can be set in the constitution.  This will be a decision that Kennedy and Roberts will be happy to approve.  Kennedy in particular will like the nuance.

You are now too late to do redistricting for 2016.

Realizing this, you only challenge the body doing the redistricting, implicitly agreeing that all the other standards are applicable.

The commission plan is made a public submission.

Do you plan to draw a completely new map?  Or are you only going to make changes to a few districts?

When the California Supreme Court takes up the case, the plaintiffs are going to have a very well documented plan to compare against yours.

When you are being deposed, will you have to testify: "Juan Valdez?  Is he a congressman?  Denwho?"

And you are still going to lose the referendum.

What if the ruling is that the referendum/initiative as applied to redistricting is null and void nationwide?  Presumably almost every commission in the country falls, except maybe IA/NJ/NY because the legislature explicitly asked for the commission.

[Skill and Chance]

What if the ruling is that the referendum/initiative as applied to redistricting is null and void nationwide?  Presumably almost every commission in the country falls, except maybe IA/NJ/NY because the legislature explicitly asked for the commission.

You mean congressional redistricting.  In your scenario, the Florida legislature will redistrict congressional districts.

Yes, I understand that only congressional redistricting is at stake.  The broadest possible ruling would be that any ballot measure that regulates congressional redistricting in any way is unconstitutional and no body other than the legislature can ever have any role in setting congressional lines.  That would take down every commission in the country plus Fair Districts Florida and the Michigan rules. 

I don't think many of us expect it to be that broad, though.  More likely is a ruling that any referendum/initiative that delegates the process somewhere other than the legislature is invalid (only AZ and CA fall) or that plus the legislature itself can't delegate the power (then IA/ID/NJ/NY/WA fall as well).  Under either of those scenarios, the Florida and Michigan rules would stay in effect because the legislature still draws, right?