U.S. Supreme Court: Shelby County Cannot Recoup Attorney Fees for Winning Landmark Voting Rights Case

By EditorJan 25, 2016

Today the U.S. Supreme Court rejected an appeal by Shelby County, Alabama. It means that Shelby is stuck with the $2 million bill for winning its landmark case against the Voting Rights Act. It had filed a petition to recover its attorneys fees, which is allowed under the Act but a lower court denied the claim and the Supreme Court agreed. The lower court ruled on the basis that the litigation did not advance the law's anti-discriminatory purpose. Read the NYT article here.

LAW, NEWS, POLICY and PRACTICE, Redistricting, Redistricting Litigation, Redistricting Race RulesAlabama, attorney fees, States

Will the Court’s Arizona Decision Spawn More Independent Commissions?

By EditorSep 22, 2015

Now that the Supreme Court has sanctioned Independent Redistricting Commissions brought about by voter ballot intiatives, will more states follow? Is this an effective way to thwart Republican gerrymanders? Michael Sargeant and Mark Schauer ponder these questions in this article in The Hill Blog. They point out that ballot initiatives are not widely available among the states although many could benefit from voter initiatives that take the partisanship out of the redistricting equation. The best strategy according to Sargeant and Schauer is to ensure Democratic majorities in these key states. Read more.

Elections Clause, Redistricting Commissions, REFORMArizona, California, Independent Redistricting Commission

Arizona Supreme Court Case Could Threaten Redistricting Commissions in these 6 States

By EditorMar 10, 2015

Last week the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission. The case centers around whether voters by initiative, can transfer the authority to redraw state and congressional boundaries from the state legislature to an independent commission, something Arizona has been doing since 2000. This Brennan Center report lists those states with commissions that could be in jeopardy should the Supreme Court side with the Arizona legislature in this case. Read the report here.

Elections Clause, FEATURES, POLICY and PRACTICE, Redistricting CommissionsBrennan Center, States

Listen to Supreme Court Oral Argument in the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission Case

By EditorMar 09, 2015

Last week the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission. The case revolves around the Republican-led legislatures' challenge to a state constitutional amendment that voters passed by initiative in 2000 giving a bipartisan commission control over redrawing Arizona's state and congressional district boundaries. While there are some initial issues of standing, the substantive question in this case will be whether the U.S. Constitution's Elections Clause prevents a state from transferring redistricting authority to an entity other than the legislature. So far, there have been several early impressions of the oral argument published, many…

Elections Clause, Redistricting Commissions, Redistricting LitigationArizona, Independent Redistricting Commission, lawid, oral argument, state legislature

Early Analysis of Supreme Court Oral Argument in Arizona Redistricting Case

By EditorMar 03, 2015

Hear are early assessments of the Supreme Court's oral argument yesterday in Arizona Legislative Black Caucus v. Arizona. Click the links for analysis. SCOTUSBLOG: Argument analysis: Literalism vs. the power of the people NYT: Court Skeptical of Arizona Plan for Less-Partisan Congressional Redistricting NPR: Supreme Court Seems Divided Over Independent Redistricting Commissions Politico: High Court Hears Redistricting Case Election Law Blog: Analysis: Supreme Court Looks to Endanger Citizen Redistricting Commissions and MORE Christian Science Monitor: Supreme Court: Can independent commissions draw redistricting lines?

Elections Clause, FEATURES, RedistrictingArizona, Independent Redistricting Commission

Supreme Court May Resurrect Alabama Legislative Black Caucus’ Equal Population Claims

By EditorMar 02, 2015

The Alabama Legislative Black Caucus' Supreme Court Case was late last year, and focused on whether that state's 2012 legislative redistricting plan was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. Interestingly, there was a second question presented in the case at the district court level: "whether the 2012 redistricting plans allocate control of local delegations in a manner which violates Equal Protection, effectively denying county residents equal voting rights." This "second" question is actually an equal population challenge, and is based on the redistricting maps' gratuitous breaching of county jurisdiction lines. In Alabama, it is local state legislative delegations that have most of…

Casedocs, Equal Protection, FEATURES, POLICY and PRACTICE, Redistricting Gerrymanders, Redistricting LitigationAlabama, lpequalpro, States, Supreme Court

Listen: Supreme Court Oral Argument in Alabama Racial Gerrymander Case

By EditorDec 08, 2014

Listen to the Supreme Court's oral arguments in the consolidated cases; Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama and Alabama Democratic Conference v. Alabama. Democratic lawmakers in the Alabama legislature claim the Republican-led legislature packed Black voters into state legislative districts to dilute their voting power resulting in an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. The court heard oral arguments on November 12th 2014.

Equal Protection, LAW, NEWS, POLICY and PRACTICE, Race in Redistricting, Racial Gerrymandering, Redistricting, Redistricting Gerrymanders, Redistricting Litigation, Redistricting Race RulesAlabama, scotus, States

In Malapportionment Claims, Its All About Timing and Context

By EditorApr 16, 2013

The 2010 census brought good news to Latinos in Pennsylvania. Significant gains where made the Latino population in the Philadelphia area and other regions of the state. This would mean increased representation in the state legislature. Imagine the disappointment when the state elections were held in 2012 under the 2001 reapportionment map. The Legislative Reapportionment Commission had convened and drawn a new state legislative map in 2011, but the state Supreme Court found it constitutionally lacking. With no redistricted map in place, the court allowed the 2001 map to be used for the 2012 state elections. Some Latino groups…

Equal Protection, Redistricting, Redistricting Criteria, Redistricting Litigation, Strategy and PoliticsBASICS, Pennsylvania