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

[jimrtex]

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.

Proposition 11, passed in November 2008, established the Independent Redistricting Commission for legislative redistricting.  It also established new rules for congressional redistricting, while leaving congressional redistricting in the hands of the legislature. 

You may recall that when you were a prospective commission member it was only for purposes of legislative redistricting.

Proposition 20, passed in November 2010, moved congressional redistricting to the redistricting commission.  It also tightened the standards for congressional redistricting.  Proposition 11 permitted political considerations for congressional districts, while outlawing it for legislative districts.  Proposition 20 outlawed political considerations for congressional districts.

The commissioners had already been selected before Proposition 20 was passed.

It is unlikely that the SCOTUS, particularly Justice Kennedy, and perhaps Chief Justice Roberts, will overturn the functional or procedural aspects of Proposition 11 and 20 as they relate to congressional redistricting.

That is, a state constitution can dictate how the legislature legislates.  A state constitution may not take the legislature completely out of the redistricting process.

Proposition 11 directed:

"(d) The Legislature shall coordinate with the Citizens Redistricting Commission established pursuant to Section 2 to hold concurrent hearings, provide access to redistricting data and software, and otherwise ensure full public participation in the redistricting process. The Legislature shall comply with the open hearing requirements of paragraphs (1), (2), (3), and (7) of subdivision (a) of, and subdivision (b) of, Section 8253 of the Government Code, or its successor provisions of statute."

That is, while the legislature was left in charge of congressional redistricting, they have to act like an ordinary public body, and not like a sneaky legislature.   

The specific provisions of Section 8253 read (substitute "legislature" for "commission")

(a)(1) The commission shall comply with the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act (Article 9 (commencing with Section 11120) of Chapter 1 of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2), or its successor. The commission shall provide not less than 14 days’ public notice for each meeting, except that meetings held in September in the year ending in the number one may be held with three days’ notice. 

(a)(2) The records of the commission pertaining to redistricting and all data considered by the commission are public records that will be posted in a manner that ensures immediate and widespread public access.

(a)(3) Commission members and staff may not communicate with or receive communications about redistricting matters from anyone outside of a public hearing. This paragraph does not prohibit communication between commission members, staff, legal counsel, and consultants retained by the commission that is otherwise permitted by the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act or its successor outside of a public hearing.

That is, if Representative Pelosi, or someone from the DNC wants the legislature to enact a particular plan, they can speak before a hearing just like any ordinary decent citizen.

(a)(7) The commission shall establish and implement an open hearing process for public input and deliberation that shall be subject to public notice and promoted through a thorough outreach program to solicit broad public participation in the redistricting public review process. The hearing process shall include hearings to receive public input before the commission draws any maps and hearings following the drawing and display of any commission maps. In addition, hearings shall be supplemented with other activities as appropriate to further increase opportunities for the public to observe and participate in the review process. The commission shall display the maps for public comment in a manner designed to achieve the widest public access reasonably possible. Public comment shall be taken for at least 14 days from the date of public display of any map.

(b) The Legislature shall take all steps necessary to ensure that a complete and accurate computerized database is available for redistricting, and that procedures are in place to provide the public ready access to redistricting data and computer software for drawing maps. Upon the commission’s formation and until its dissolution, the Legislature shall coordinate these efforts with the commission.

Other provisions of Proposition 11

"The Legislature shall issue, with its final map, a report that explains the basis on which it made its decisions in achieving compliance with these criteria and shall include definitions of the terms and standards used in drawing its final map."

We wuz trying to gut Valadao probably does not comply with the criteria, even if was the basis that the legislature made its decisions.

(4) The geographic integrity of any city, county, city and county, neighborhood, or community of interest shall be respected to the extent possible without violating the requirements of any of the preceding subdivisions. Communities of interest shall not include relationships with political  parties, incumbents, or political candidates.

(5) To the extent practicable, and where this does not conflict with the criteria above, districts shall be drawn to encourage geographical compactness such that nearby areas of population are not bypassed for more distant population.

Proposition 20 (passed in November 2010) made the following apply to congressional districts:

(e) The place of residence of any incumbent or political candidate shall not be considered in the creation of a map. Districts shall not be drawn for the purpose of favoring or discriminating against an incumbent, political candidate, or political party.

This is a legitimate criteria regardless who is doing the redistricting.

If the Arizona legislature wins, the California legislature might seek a declaratory judgment that Proposition 11 and 20 don't apply to congressional redistricting.  There would almost certainly be lengthy litigation over this, since propositions 11 and 20 both had severability clauses.

If they go ahead and pass a redistricting plan there will be a referendum on it.  This has the effect of suspending the law until after the referendum is held in November 2016.  The governor could call a special election, but that would lead to an even greater defeat for the referendum.  So the 2016 elections will be held using the current districts.  Any legal challenges to the legislative plan itself will not be considered until after the referendum, since a popular veto would moot the plan.

So why would the legislature bother since the voters will reject their plan, and if they don't the courts will, and at best won't take effect until 2018?

[jimrtex]

"If they go ahead and pass a redistricting plan there will be a referendum on it."

Why is that necessarily so?

The Republicans will collect the signatures to force a referendum.  Remember, there was a referendum on the senate plan drawn by the redistricting commission and that was hardly as partisan as the legislature might be tempted to draw.

Because of the odd-even election of senators, the senate plan had a temporal partisan bias, whether intentional or not.  Democrats won 15 of 20 senate seats in 2012; 10 of 20 in 2014. 

In California, when a new senate plan is adopted half of the senators continue to serve.  Between 2012 and 2014, 10% of Californians had no senator, while 10% had two senators. They use the euphemisms of "deferred" and "accelerated" for what is "disenfranchisement" or "double voting".

Odd (2008): 11 D, 9 R (elected under old plan)
Even (2010): 14 D, 6 R (elected under old plan)
Odd (2012): 15 D, 5 R (elected under new plan)
Even (2014): 10 D, 10 R (elected under new plan)

When all senators had been elected under the old plan (in 2010), the total makeup of the senate was 25D and 15R.  When all senators had been elected under the new plan (in 2014), the total makeup of the senate was 15D and 15R.   There is no partisan difference.

But because of the transition glitch, the composition of the senate (in 2012) was 29D and 11R.

When a referendum petition is filed, the law is suspended.  But redistricting is special, since you can't call off an election simply because there are no lawful districts.

In 2011, the commission successfully argued that their plan should be used; rather than the plan created by the legislature in 2001, because the plan in 2001 no longer complied with OMOV.
Once this happened, the Republicans did not put any muscle into passing the referendum.

In 1982 there were referendum on all three plans, and the voters rejected all three plans (by about 65%:35%).  But Chief Justice Liberal Rose Bird had ordered the new maps be used for the 1982 elections.  So while the voters overwhelmingly rejected the map, the legislature was elected using those maps.  The incoming legislature simply re-passed the maps, and included an urgency clause, which made them referendum-proof.   Lame-duck Jerrymander Brown, the Younger signed them into law, before Governor Deukmejian took office (legislators take office in December, the governor in January).

In 2015, the California Supreme Court would have 4 choices of maps to be used for the 2016 election:

(1) The map passed in 2001 by the legislature.  This is a legal map, except it does not comply with OMOV.
(2) The map created in 2011 by the commission.  It presumably complies with the constitution, other than the procedural matter of who drew the map.
(3) The map drawn by the legislature in 2015.  It is subject to the referendum, and is also be challenged in court based on whether it complies with the California constitution.
(4) A new plan drawn by a special master.

The Supreme Court will pick option (2) since that preserves the status quo, while the voters decide whether they will reject (3) and while its legality is litigated.

[jimrtex]

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?

The CA referendum passed law has language cleverly enmeshing the legislature, such that it might be distinguished to the AZ to the extent it does not, for purposes of whether the new referendum itself might be struck down.

Another difference is that the Arizona districts are also being challenged in court.  This is a quite interesting case regarding political gerrymandering of the legislative districts.

Harris v. Ariz. Ind. Redistricting Comm'n

In Arizona, four of the commissioners are chosen by the legislative leaders, who then choose the 5th commissioner from a pool of five "independent" applicants.   Of the five independents, one had a picture with Nancy Pelosi.  Another mainly contributed to Democrats, and admired Van Jones.   Another was head of the Arizona ACLU.  It appears that Mathis was merely the least obviously biased.  The mapping company had never done any redistricting, but they had been done targeted campaign marketing, exclusively for Democratic clients.

The dissent has a quite interesting chart on Page 6.

Dissent in Harris v. Ariz. Ind. Redistricting Comm'n

That case is on appeal to the SCOTUS.  In light of their decision in the Alabama legislative redistricting case, I'd expect them to take the case.

The congressional districts are also being challenged in state court, but that case is stayed pending the SCOTUS decision on Article I.  If the SCOTUS rules in favor of the legislature, the state court might decide the challenge to the congressional districts is moot.  The legislature would be forced to step in.

I think the reason that one reason that the California initiative was split into two parts (Proposition 11 in 2008, and Proposition 20 in 2010) was that backers were concerned about the issue of taking the legislature out of congressional redistricting.  They may also have been concerned about the parties, particularly the congressional and national parties, opposing it.

Incidentally, the selection process in Arizona is about as bad as you can get.  After the initial pool was selected, the legislative leaders each picked one member, who then chose the "independent" member.   Decisions could be made on a 3-2 basis.

In California, there were 20 member pools for each of three classes.   The legislative leaders could strike 2 persons from each pool, but no strikes were made.  3 Democrats, 3 Republicans, and 2 others were selected at random.  They in turn selected an additional 2 members from each group so that the final composition was 5:5:4.  A decision on a final map required concurrent majorities from each group.  California also does not permit competitiveness considerations.

[jimrtex]

How were the 5 independent pool choices selected, and just how did that pool get to be so biased?

Arizona has a state commission for choosing appellate court judges, Commission on Appellate Court Appointments, that selected the pool.  The chief justice of the Arizona Supreme Court chairs this commission, so she may have a bias towards Mathis (or at least the process that resulted in her selection).

There were 79 applicants, 31 Democrats, 31 Republicans, and 17 others; this compares to 319 in 2001.  The 79 were reduced to 40, 15 Democrats, 15 Republicans, and 10 others, who were interviewed.  These 40 were interviewed at a public meeting, but I can't find anything other than references to it.  There was a web site for the application process, but it is dead now.

The court commission recently made a a list of three candidates to replace a Democrat member of the redistricting commission.  The court commission website says, "too late, you snooze you lose" (paraphrase), so I doubt that there is anything from 2010 on their web site.

The Arizona Supreme Court ordered the court commission to choose two new Republicans for the pool of 10, because they were officers in irrigation districts.  At the same time, they refused to strike the ACLU guy, who was on the judicial courts of two Indian tribes.  All Republicans on the court commission voted against the ACLU guy, and one even voted against the entire slate of 25 because of his presence.

I don't know whether the "independence" of the the other candidates was a criteria, or whether it was simply a matter of their registration.

The executive director for the redistricting commission in the 2000s was one of the final 10 other candidates, but did not make the final 5.

PS The Arizona redistricting commission is not subject to Arizona open meeting laws.  Contrast to California where not only the commission is subject to those rules, but the legislature would be if were to do congressional redistricting.

PPS There is an North Carolina redistricting case that the SCOTUS sent back to the North Carolina Supreme Court to reconsider in light of the Alabama decision.  In North Carolina the legislature apparently used a 50% BVAP criteria.  Apparently you must racially gerrymander, but have to pretend that you aren't.

PPPS There are two congressional proposals to that require used of redistricting commissions for Congress.  One sets the two top criteria as population equality and compliance with the VRA, and then requires contiguous districts so long as that does not prevent compliance with the first two criteria.   That sort of suggests that you could used non-contiguous districts in order to create a map based on whole counties that had near equal population; or alternatively not need to connect the earmuffs in Illinois, or connect the cities along the interstate in NC.

[jimrtex]

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. 

The SCOTUS will rule in June.  The Arizona Supreme Court could issue a decision within days mooting the challenge to the congressional plan on the basis that it was not drawn by the legislature and was therefore irrelevant whether it complied with other procedures.

A special session would be held in July.  The filing deadline is not until next May.  Arizona is not subject to Section 5 preclearance.

Under US Code, if a state fails to redistrict, what happens depends on the number of representatives:

State adds representatives: Additional members elected at-large (this applies to Arizona).  The other representatives would be elected based on the old 2000s districts.
State loses representatives: All members elected at large.
State has no change: Members elected from the old 2000s districts.

But the old 2000 districts don't comply with OMOV.

[jimrtex]

The Alabama SCOTUS case focused on racial gerrymandering to avoid a reduction in black percentages (retrogression under the now defunct Section 5) that were far in excess of 50% BVAP (the prime district in question was over 70% BVAP). I think it still good practice to try to hit 50% BVAP via racial gerrymandering if the black areas included within a CD are reasonably contiguous. The odds are very low any court would view that as racial gerrymandering for purposes of diluting black influence in other CD's. It is probably further reasonable to take into account population trends going out over 10 years that can be documented as likely to occur.

This is the North Carolina Supreme Court decision in Dickson v. Rucho.   The SCOTUS has just granted certiori, vacated the decision, and remanded the case back to the North Carolina Supreme Court, to try to apply the SCOTUS reason in the Alabama case.

There are 70% BVAP districts in Alabama, but these weren't really the ones at issue.  There are counties in the Black Belt that are 70% BVAP where you can draw whole county districts that are 70% BVAP.  In 2001 the Democratic-controlled legislature had deliberately underpopulated the BVAP districts.  This was done as part of political gerrymander.  In general, majority BVAP areas have poorer job prospects, so they lose population or don't gain as much.  They may also have an increase in BVAP% (18 YO whites go away to college, and then move to Birmingham, Atlanta, etc., and the older population dies off).

When the Republican-controlled legislature drew the districts they set a lower permitted deviation.  This meant that the existing VRA districts had to be expanded, not only to make up population, but for slower growth.  The legislature also maintained the existing BVAP of the districts.

[jimrtex]

California's legislature had less input than Arizona's when creating the congressional districts so I highly doubt the Supreme Court could strike down Arizona's districts and not California's. Then again, this court has proven it is capable of anything so.....

The SCOTUS will not strike down any districts.  When they rule in favor of the Arizona legislature, the legislature will simply draw a new congressional map, which Governor Brewer will sign.   Courts will decide that any standards for congressional districts are not severable from the remainder of Proposition 106.

Meanwhile, the SCOTUS will also strike down the legislative map drawn by the commission as an illegal political gerrymander.  The process will be totally discredited.

In California, the legislature will find that Proposition 11, approved by the voters in 2008 is still valid.  There will also be a decision that the districting standards added by Proposition 20 in 2010 are also valid.  We will probably ended up with indictments of several additional Democratic legislators.  Kamala Harris will be so discredited that she will never serve on the SCOTUS. 

Valadao and Denham can easily be removed. Get rid of Kings County from Valadao and give him more of Fresno and Denham gets to represent Salinas. Both would be finished in that scenario. Steve Knight could be easily gotten rid of in SoCal but the other districts would be a bit tougher. At least 3 districts could be gained for the Democrats without breaking a sweat while shoring up the rest of the Democrats.

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

Arizona has a horrible system.  Remember it was the redistricting commission that drew the district connecting the Hopi reservation via the Colorado River umbilical.  They have a system where the independent redistricting commission is not subject to open meeting laws.  They have a system where a sleeper agent prevented hiring the Republican counsel preferred by the Republican members.  They hired a mapping consultant who had never done redistricting work, but had run targeted marketing during political campaigns, but exclusively for Democratic clients, and based in Washington, D.C.

[jimrtex]

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.

[jimrtex]

The Alabama SCOTUS case focused on racial gerrymandering to avoid a reduction in black percentages (retrogression under the now defunct Section 5) that were far in excess of 50% BVAP (the prime district in question was over 70% BVAP). I think it still good practice to try to hit 50% BVAP via racial gerrymandering if the black areas included within a CD are reasonably contiguous. The odds are very low any court would view that as racial gerrymandering for purposes of diluting black influence in other CD's. It is probably further reasonable to take into account population trends going out over 10 years that can be documented as likely to occur.

This is the North Carolina Supreme Court decision in Dickson v. Rucho.   The SCOTUS has just granted certiori, vacated the decision, and remanded the case back to the North Carolina Supreme Court, to try to apply the SCOTUS reason in the Alabama case.

There are 70% BVAP districts in Alabama, but these weren't really the ones at issue.  There are counties in the Black Belt that are 70% BVAP where you can draw whole county districts that are 70% BVAP.  In 2001 the Democratic-controlled legislature had deliberately underpopulated the BVAP districts.  This was done as part of political gerrymander.  In general, majority BVAP areas have poorer job prospects, so they lose population or don't gain as much.  They may also have an increase in BVAP% (18 YO whites go away to college, and then move to Birmingham, Atlanta, etc., and the older population dies off).

When the Republican-controlled legislature drew the districts they set a lower permitted deviation.  This meant that the existing VRA districts had to be expanded, not only to make up population, but for slower growth.  The legislature also maintained the existing BVAP of the districts.

And in the expansion, the lines did not follow other redistricting principles in order to keep the BVAP from dropping, which had been at a number far in excess of 50% BVAP, correct?  There was no district in play here where the figure was barely above 50% BVAP was there, that needed to be gerrymandered to keep it at that percentage was there?

I took a look at the SCOTUS opinion, and you are right about the Montgomery County district (SD-26).   It was around 75%.  The SCOTUS was duped.  Montgomery (city) is in the northern part of the county.  The white population is generally to the east of the central part of the city, with the black areas to the west, but somewhat wrapping around to the north and south.

The northern boundary of the county is the meandering Alabama River.  The southern boundary is straight lines, bounding a largely rural area (most of the growth in the area is north of the river in Autauga and Elmore counties.

SD-26 as configured in 2001 is an intricately drawn district wrapping around the white population, and following the northern boundary along the Alabama River.   It then has the sparsely populated rectangle in the southern part of the county attached to it.  The SCOTUS saw the goblet rather than the face.  SD-25 is the white area surrounded on three sides, connected to a portion of Elmore County.

Under the 2011 plan, SD-26 nibbles away at the whiter area of Montgomery city, to make up its deficit of 16,000.  But the rural area in the southern part of the county is switched to CD-25 to connect to Crenshaw County.  The connection to the whiter area is moved to the east.

SCOTUS opinion - See map on page 30

The plaintiffs propose moving SD-25 entirely in to Montgomery County, meanwhile SD-26 would be augmented with Lowndes County and Autauga County (minus a cutout of the Montgomery suburbs in the SE Corner).  The BVAP would drop from 75% to 57%.   I suspect that if you compare the cores of the districts, the plan passed by the legislature does a better job of maintaining it.

The Supreme Court also used net change of population.  If you add 4000 white persons in one area, and remove 4500 white persons in another, you have made a net change of -500.  This would imply 100%+ of the change was black persons.

Based on the 2010 Census, the 28 majority-black House districts had an average of 38,410 persons.  The 77 majority-white House districts had an average of 48.107 persons (25% more persons).  The quota was 45,521,

Based on the 2010 Census, the 8 majority-black Senate districts had a population of 115,466 persons.  The 27 majority-white senate districts had an average of 142,815 (23.7% greater).  The quota was 136,563.

The black-majority districts were grossly underpopulated, because they had been underpopulated by the Democrats in 2001, and they had grown less or even lost population.

The plan passed by the legislature enabled about 108,000 additional black persons who did not have the ability to elect the senator of their choice before 2011, to have the ability to elect their senator of choice.  The alternative proposed by the plaintiffs would disable about 65,000 black persons.

Alabama appears not to use a consistent definition of VTD, but the lawsuit uses it interchangeably with election precinct.  For example, "Anniston" is a VTD with 40,000 persons.  In other cases, it appears that the names of VTDs are made from multiple voting locations, connected by slashes.

Some maps of interest:

2001 Senate Districts

This is the 2001 map.

2011 Senate Districts

This is the 2011 map.  While it appears that the 2011 map cuts more county boundaries, it might not.  The 2011 presentation emphasizes county boundaries.  The 2001 map gives more emphasis to districts since you will see the large solid areas rather than the details of the boundaries.

Note that in Jefferson County, there are three senate districts within the county and five that overlap in both maps.  Part of the complaint is based on the process for approving county-specific legislation.   Alabama counties have weak legislative powers, with most legislation done by the legislature.  Such legislation must be passed by a majority of both houses, just like any other legislation.  As a matter of tradition, legislators defer to the delegations from the county involved.  The legislature also has committees organized by county to consider the legislation for their county.  So the 5 senators from the districts that overlap the boundaries may dominate legislation for the area.

Incidentally, the Alabama Constitution hasn't been changed since Reynolds v Sims.

This is the map proposed in 2015.

2015 Proposed Senate/Dems Find Religion

Notice the cute trick in Mobile Bay.  I suspect that this was not the map they would have proposed in 2011, nor even in litigation.   That is, it is tailored for the remand.

In Jefferson County, the three majority-black districts (18, 19, and 20) become slightly more black under this map.  But the two other districts that were drawn in the county are only 14% and 6% white.  So in what sense are SD-18, 19, and 20 racial gerrymanders?

SD-23 and SD-28 in the Black Belt are made less black as they are made whole counties.   SD-28 drops from around 60% to just below 50%.

The main difference is that SD-25 is made 45% BVAP, compared to 25% under the current map.  In addition, SD-9 in Madison County (Huntsville) is made 45% BVAP.  Currently there are no districts that are close to that in the area, and the plaintiffs are not challenging the districts.  It fails the Gingles test.

PS This is of interest to Hudson:

Tabular Data - illustrates calculation of deviation in a conventional equal-population single member plan

Note that the deviation is calculated as a numeric difference from the quota (136,564).  The range of deviation (6494, -6492) or a total of 12,986 is somewhat meaningless.  It would (should) be negligible if these were congressional districts, and it would be extremely large for most city councils.  The total range is twice the population of Hudson.

Instead the relative deviation is calculated.   In Roxbury Taxpayers, the judges using-bozomath calculated deviation as the difference between the percentage share of population and percentage share of weighted vote.  But this is meaningless because the percentage shares are dependent on the size of the legislative body.  Wyoming has about 0.2% of the US population, but we wouldn't think it OK if Wyoming had 5% of the representatives (21 or 22).

On the other hand, on a 5-member village council, where the average district should have 20% of the population, a district with 21% or 22% of the population might be OK.

[jimrtex]

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.

[jimrtex]

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?

Iowa does not have a commission.  An agency of the legislature proposes districts which the legislature may reject (and in the past have rejected).  In which case the agency must propose an alternative.

The Michigan legislature creating the redistricting standards in statute.  There is a footnote in the statutes that in 2001, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled that the legislature is not bound by those standards.  So apparently, the 2000 congressional districts (passed in the form of law) contradicted the 1999 statutes.

The Florida standards for congressional districts were challenged in court, both by the legislature and Corrine Brown and Mario Diaz-Balart.  I think technically the lawsuits are still alive, but in any case could be refiled if the Supreme Court rules in favor of the Arizona legislature.  The SCOTUS is not going to address the issue of Florida in June.  The current maps are still being challenged on the basis that the legislature did not follow the process in the congressional districts.

They can rule, "in the past we've ruled that the term "legislature" could encompass popular or gubernatorial veto, or even resolution by state courts when the legislature fails to legislate.  Since these provisions are imposed by the People through the state constitution, the People can lock the legislature in a dark room, and let some other body pass laws."

Or they can rule, "in the past we've ruled that the term "legislature" could encompass popular or gubernatorial veto, or even resolution by state courts when the legislature fails to legislate.  But what Arizona has done goes so far beyond that, it is inconceivable that the Founders had contemplated."

The justices in the first group will then say that the decision by the (5:4) majority will lead to ongoing litigation over what constraints the People may place on congressional redistricting.  The majority will explain that their job is not to reduce litigation, but to interpret the Constiitution.

You will get a 5:4 decision because Justice Kennedy likes the nuance.

The Florida case will then be appealed to the SCOTUS.  Justice Kennedy will side with the Florida constitution setting standards for districts.

California can fall back to Proposition 11 in 2008, which left congressional redistricting in the hands of the legislature, while setting standards for congressional districts and procedural details.  The key issue to be litigated is whether the ban on political gerrymandering added as part of Proposition 20 in 2010 is severable from the removal of the legislature.   That will take further litigation.

You may get a decision that a state constitution may bar political gerrymandering, but the way that was implemented in California was too entangled with the removal of the legislature from congressional redistricting.  In that case, you simply pass a new initiative barring political gerrymandering, while leaving congressional redistricting in the hands of the legislature.

The situation in California is so complicated that it won't be resolved this decade.  And it might be that the Democrats in California decide to attack Top 2 rather than congressional redistricting.