Recent developments in redistricting reform (June 2016)

[Virginiá]

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLORIDA PRISON GERRYMANDERING LAWSUIT RULING ISSUED
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2016/03/21/3761659/florida-prison-gerrymandering-case/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This could be somewhat significant. Not all states count prisoners as residents of the district the prison is in, but most do. This serves as an additional gerrymandering tool where the opposition's representatives can have their support diluted with non-voting prisoners, while stacking the actual voting electorate with voters that vote for the other side.

I'm not sure how this affects the recent case the USSC is hearing regarding a conservative group's attempts in Texas to get children, prisoners and undocumented immigrants as uncounted in redistricting. I would guess that it doesn't really affect that because the plaintiffs in the Florida case sought to have the prisoners counted where they used to live, rather than the prison district, whereas the Texas case wants them not counted altogether.

Hopefully this decision is replicated throughout the other federal circuits.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PENNSYLVANIA REDISTRICTING REFORM?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.pennlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2016/03/redistricting_reform_is_answer.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Normally I wouldn't even bother posting attempts at reform like this, but in Pennsylvania, as a result of Democrats winning the recent State Supreme Court elections and obtaining a 5-1 majority (1 vacancy due to Republican justice being suspended), Democrats are now going to be able to gerrymander state legislative districts for themselves in 2021 due to the way the state legislative redistricting commission works, with the State SC influencing the final vote in the commission.

So how is this relevant? Well, with state Republicans now seeing that they might very well be gerrymandered out of power in 2022+ for possibly a decade, they might be far more open to redistricting reform. Democrats will no doubt require Congressional redistricting reform as well. Such reform would help open up Pennsylvania after years of GOP dominance.

This might seem even more appealing, because if Gov. Wolf chooses to run again and wins, then Congressional gerrymandering attempts by the state GOP will not pass. With this in mind, the state GOP might see gerrymandering reform as more beneficial to them, given that they won't be able to rig any maps in 2021-2022.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Two excellent news. Hope the PA reform goes through: nonpartisan redistricting is better than Dem gerrymander.

[Virginiá]

http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/ill-house-democrats-propose-redistricting-amendment/article_f5e08bcb-76ed-5e86-8cc7-138ea94022a4.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Looks like Illinois Democrats in the legislature are preparing to put their own redistricting reform amendment for state legislative districts on the ballot for 2016. From what I can tell, this is more friendly for Democrats. I'm not even sure if it explicitly prohibits drawing lines for partisan gain.

I don't see any blatantly obvious provisions that would allow for unrestrained gerrymandering but at the same time, if the legislature is trying to push this, then I have to believe it is more favorable for them.

@muon2: What are your thoughts on this?

[jimrtex]

http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/ill-house-democrats-propose-redistricting-amendment/article_f5e08bcb-76ed-5e86-8cc7-138ea94022a4.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Looks like Illinois Democrats in the legislature are preparing to put their own redistricting reform amendment for state legislative districts on the ballot for 2016. From what I can tell, this is more friendly for Democrats. I'm not even sure if it explicitly prohibits drawing lines for partisan gain.

I don't see any blatantly obvious provisions that would allow for unrestrained gerrymandering but at the same time, if the legislature is trying to push this, then I have to believe it is more favorable for them.

@muon2: What are your thoughts on this?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Either Rep.Franks was misquoted; he is abysmally ignorant; or hopelessly dishonest. So what is his real motivation?

[Virginiá]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Either Rep.Franks was misquoted; he is abysmally ignorant; or hopelessly dishonest. So what is his real motivation?

I think "doesn't protect minority voters" is the new Democratic go-to defense reason for either rejecting gerrymandering reform or watering it down. This argument was recently given in Colorado as well. It's sort of like how Republicans use "voter fraud" as an excuse to implement any number of ways to make voting more annoying, even if unrelated to anything that could cause fraud.

It's shameful really. No party/politicians should be rigging maps like in Illinois.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Very interesting thread, thanks Virginia!

Hopefully we'll see some progress on this issue over the next 4 years. There's also a chance that the next Justice will move the Court to be more aggressive in tackling gerrymandering.

[Virginiá]

Very interesting thread, thanks Virginia!

Hopefully we'll see some progress on this issue over the next 4 years. There's also a chance that the next Justice will move the Court to be more aggressive in tackling gerrymandering.

You're welcome! And yes, I think this will be more thoroughly resolved either next year, or whenever the next justice is confirmed (provided it's a moderate or liberal).

There are a couple cases working their way through the courts that propose reliable tests to determine if a map is rigged. A Wisconsin lawsuit against their gerrymandered state legislative districts proposes a test measuring wasted votes and highest vote margins for a party/candidate various districts, which apparently was very reliable in identifying various rigged maps across the country. A Maryland case, iirc, proposes measuring the % of seats held by a party vs % of the House/State popular vote that they got. So, say, if Republicans only won 45% of the House PV in a state but got 60%+ of the House seats, then it needs to be redrawn. I think the Wisconsin method is better, but at this point, either one would be a big help.

Anyways, will keep this updated. Virginia gets a ruling later this year, likely to uphold the redrawn map, and North Carolina just concluded the trial for a lawsuit against the gerrymandered state senate/house maps. Maryland has a lawsuit and Wisconsin as well, as stated above. There are some others I think, but those are most notable.

[Antonio the Sixth]

There are a couple cases working their way through the courts that propose reliable tests to determine if a map is rigged. A Wisconsin lawsuit against their gerrymandered state legislative districts proposes a test measuring wasted votes and highest vote margins for a party/candidate various districts, which apparently was very reliable in identifying various rigged maps across the country. A Maryland case, iirc, proposes measuring the % of seats held by a party vs % of the House/State popular vote that they got. So, say, if Republicans only won 45% of the House PV in a state but got 60%+ of the House seats, then it needs to be redrawn. I think the Wisconsin method is better, but at this point, either one would be a big help.

The Maryland test seems like it would go against one of the points of FPP, which is to give a bonus to the winning party. The Wisconsin test seems stronger. It probably won't be a foolproof method, but it should guard against abominations like PA, OH or the original NC map.

The best criterion should be one based on communities of interest, but of course there's no way to define them objectively.

[jimrtex]

Corrine Brown's federal lawsuit was thrown out today.  This year's elections will be held on the new FDF-compliant congressional map:


http://www.sunshinestatenews.com/story/federal-judges-reject-corrine-brown-lawsuit-throw-out-new-congressional-districts

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[muon2]

http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/ill-house-democrats-propose-redistricting-amendment/article_f5e08bcb-76ed-5e86-8cc7-138ea94022a4.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Looks like Illinois Democrats in the legislature are preparing to put their own redistricting reform amendment for state legislative districts on the ballot for 2016. From what I can tell, this is more friendly for Democrats. I'm not even sure if it explicitly prohibits drawing lines for partisan gain.

I don't see any blatantly obvious provisions that would allow for unrestrained gerrymandering but at the same time, if the legislature is trying to push this, then I have to believe it is more favorable for them.

@muon2: What are your thoughts on this?

It's a reasonable proposal. Compared to the citizen petition initiative it's simpler to understand, decouples from the legislative leaders, and includes compactness as a criteria. It is more explicit in its definition of an influence district, perhaps beyond permissible use of race, but it may also fall under the choice provided in Bartlett v Strickland.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's weakness is that it doesn't protect against partisan gerrymandering other than having equal numbers of both parties. The greater risk may be bipartisan gerrymanders, but the citizen initiative has that weakness to some degree as well.

[Virginiá]

It's a reasonable proposal. Compared to the citizen petition initiative it's simpler to understand, decouples from the legislative leaders, and includes compactness as a criteria. It is more explicit in its definition of an influence district, perhaps beyond permissible use of race, but it may also fall under the choice provided in Bartlett v Strickland.

...

It's weakness is that it doesn't protect against partisan gerrymandering other than having equal numbers of both parties. The greater risk may be bipartisan gerrymanders, but the citizen initiative has that weakness to some degree as well.

If they put this on the ballot, would the citizen-proposed amendment still be put to the voters, or would the legislature's version supplant it? I ask because I think some states allow the legislature to act on the issue and only send the initiative to the voters if they don't.

Not sure why the amendment(s) wouldn't explicitly banned partisan gerrymandering. Not doing so seems like they wanted to leave the door open to some form of gerrymandering.

[Virginiá]

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NEBRASKA REDISTRICTING REFORM BILL UPDATE
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://journalstar.com/legislature/ricketts-vetoes-redistricting-reform/article_2feb534e-0c03-59a8-8e40-2ba4cbe1604b.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think it's debatable if this was really true "reform" or not. Clearly they didn't want to truly give up partisan advantage, as the criteria for picking commissioners would clearly favor Republicans and no doubt that is why they picked it. It would have prevented certain people from serving as commissioners (lobbyists, politicians, etc), but it's still weak. It also didn't explicitly ban partisan gerrymandering from what I can tell.

However, something is better than nothing here. If it were passed, it likely would have affected not only Congressional races in Nebraska but also the 1 electoral vote typically up for grabs in a good year for Democrats. Better maps could make that district more competitive.

It passed with 29 votes, and they need 30 to override the veto. We'll see how it goes!

[jimrtex]

http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/ill-house-democrats-propose-redistricting-amendment/article_f5e08bcb-76ed-5e86-8cc7-138ea94022a4.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Looks like Illinois Democrats in the legislature are preparing to put their own redistricting reform amendment for state legislative districts on the ballot for 2016. From what I can tell, this is more friendly for Democrats. I'm not even sure if it explicitly prohibits drawing lines for partisan gain.

I don't see any blatantly obvious provisions that would allow for unrestrained gerrymandering but at the same time, if the legislature is trying to push this, then I have to believe it is more favorable for them.

@muon2: What are your thoughts on this?

It's a reasonable proposal. Compared to the citizen petition initiative it's simpler to understand, decouples from the legislative leaders, and includes compactness as a criteria. It is more explicit in its definition of an influence district, perhaps beyond permissible use of race, but it may also fall under the choice provided in Bartlett v Strickland.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's weakness is that it doesn't protect against partisan gerrymandering other than having equal numbers of both parties. The greater risk may be bipartisan gerrymanders, but the citizen initiative has that weakness to some degree as well.

The commission would consist of 4 persons appointed by a Republican justice, and 4 persons appointed by a Democratic justice, then permit a 5-person  majority to decide the result. The premise appears to be that you can trust the head of the state judiciary to appoint 4 partisan leaning commissioners, and the justice from the other party to appoint 4 other partisans.

The initiative would require concurrent votes of at least 2 of 4 Republicans, 2 of 4 Democrats, and 2 of 3 others. The selection process would be more likely to choose ordinary citizens rather than partisan activists. The four members chosen by the legislative leaders would be chosen from those not chosen randomly, and may be forced to maintain balance. A citizen commission is susceptible to being run by the advisors they hire.

[jimrtex]

Corrine Brown's federal lawsuit was thrown out today.  This year's elections will be held on the new FDF-compliant congressional map:


http://www.sunshinestatenews.com/story/federal-judges-reject-corrine-brown-lawsuit-throw-out-new-congressional-districts

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Just goes to show you that it's about fair districts, not Democrats.

How is it fair to dismember Tallahassee?

[jimrtex]

North Carolina:

The federal district court (M.D. N.C.) has rejected the plaintiff's appeal with regard to the congressional remedial plan drawn by the legislature.

The court ruled that their jurisdiction was limited to determining whether the legislature had remedied the defect that the court had identified (high percentage of blacks in NC-1 and NC-12), which the remedy obviously did.

The plaintiffs argued that the legislature did not draw the plan that a court might have drawn, but that does not matter because the SCOTUS has ordered federal courts to defer to state-drawn plans.

The plaintiffs also argued that the remedial plan was a partisan gerrymander. The court did not want to adjudicate a new claim. It said that the plaintiffs could bring a new case.

[Virginiá]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VIRGINIA HOUSE OF DELEGATES MAP LAWSUIT TAKEN UP BY US SUPREME COURT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-will-weigh-in-on-whether-va-districts-are-racially-gerrymandered/2016/06/06/c0366e3c-2beb-11e6-9de3-6e6e7a14000c_story.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Good news, but I don't think it will end up making a big difference in the partisan composition of the HoD. I also wonder if the State Senate map might fall under scrutiny in this case or even be challenged before 2019, seeing as the legislative districts were subjected to a mutual gerrymander. The end result might not be that beneficial for Democrats in their hopes of preventing a full redistricting rout in 2021.

Also unrelated, but semi-noteworthy - Wisconsin state legislative maps lawsuit wrapped up and ruling should be expected in the following months. 2018 might be more interesting if the court ends up unwinding those maps.

[Gass3268]

Cook County Circuit Court tosses the Illinois Independent Map Amendment. Says it violates the state constitution.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I have to imagine the ILSC will concur with the Circuit Court.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Cook County Circuit Court tosses the Illinois Independent Map Amendment. Says it violates the state constitution.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I have to imagine the ILSC will concur with the Circuit Court.

Terrible.

[Green Line]

Another unfortunate result of the politicized judicial system in Illinois.  The Cook County judges are an extension of the Cook County Democratic Machine, which just happens to be controlled by Michael Madigan, shocker.

[Virginiá]

This is ridiculous. Is there any way to get a redistricting initiative on the ballot then? Have they tried just doing a bipartisan panel in the legislature? As I understand it, this assigned duties to officials outside of the legislature, which does sort of seem like it goes against the broad restrictions set forth in the state Constitution, but nonetheless it hardly seems like a reason to chuck it.

[Miles]

Cook County Circuit Court tosses the Illinois Independent Map Amendment. Says it violates the state constitution.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I have to imagine the ILSC will concur with the Circuit Court.

Splendid news!