Federal District Court Issues Dismissal of Census Bureau Lawsuit with Detailed Stipulations for Both Parties

The U.S. Census Bureau has reached an agreement with the various plaintiffs in a federal lawsuit seeking to ensure census data accuracy by asking the court to enforce extended timelines for processing 2020 census data. The lawsuit was originally filed to enjoin the bureau from ending its counting operations one month before its previously scheduled deadline of October 31, 2020. Further requests by plaintiffs sought to block the bureau from attempting to modify apportionment data to only include citizens and ensure that data accuracy did not suffer as the bureau sought to meet statutory deadlines for reporting data earlier in…
Read More
Justice Department Reaches Agreement with the City of West Monroe, Louisiana Under the Voting Rights Act

Justice Department Reaches Agreement with the City of West Monroe, Louisiana Under the Voting Rights Act

The Justice Department announced today that it has entered into a proposed consent decree to settle a voting rights lawsuit with the City of West Monroe, Louisiana. DOJ Press Release: April 15, 2021 The Justice Department’s lawsuit, brought under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, challenges the current at-large method of electing the West Monroe Board of Aldermen. Under this agreement, the City of West Monroe will change its method of electing its Board of Aldermen to ensure compliance with the protections of the Voting Rights Act. The proposed consent decree was filed in federal court in conjunction with…
Read More
Update: Alabama Court Grants 3-Judge Panel in Census Lawsuit

Update: Alabama Court Grants 3-Judge Panel in Census Lawsuit

An Alabama federal district court granted a Mar 8 request for a 3-judge panel by plaintiffs to consider the differential privacy claims raised in a lawsuit filed by the state of Alabama against the U.S. Census Bureau. Federal statute allows a plaintiff to request a 3-judge panel to consider any case involving the use of any statistical method used in the decennial U.S. census in possible violation of the Constitution or other provision of law. This development ensures a fast-track to the U.S. Supreme Court should one of the parties appeal the panel's decision. Read the court's order. In granting…
Read More

Ohio’s Lawsuit Over Census Data Delay is Dismissed by Federal Court

Earlier today, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio denied Ohio's request to the court for an order compelling the U.S. Census Bureau to deliver redistricting data to the state by the statutory deadline of March 31. Ultimately the court denied the request for a preliminary injunction for lack of standing because the Census Bureau's failure to meet its deadline in and of itself does not constitute a redressable injury, explaining that "A litigant is not concretely injured and standing is not met simply because a statute creates a legal obligation that goes unfulfilled." In an opinion…
Read More
West Virginia: Review of Litigation in the 2010 Redistricting Cycle

West Virginia: Review of Litigation in the 2010 Redistricting Cycle

The U.S. Supreme Court reversed a lower court decision and upheld West Virginia's 2011 congressional map with population deviations between districts of .79 percent. Tennant v. Jefferson County, No. 11-1184, 567 U.S. 758 (Sep. 25, 2012) The Jefferson County Commission and residents of Jefferson County alleged that West Virginia’s 2011 congressional plan violated the “one-person, one-vote” principle of Article I, § 2, of the U.S. Constitution. West Virginia created a redistricting plan that had a maximum population deviation of 0.79 percent (the variance between the smallest and largest districts). The State conceded that it could have made a plan with less deviation,…
Read More
What Will an Updated Voting Rights Act Preclearance Formula Look Like?

What Will an Updated Voting Rights Act Preclearance Formula Look Like?

The U.S. Supreme Court effectively halted administrative preclearance for redistricting maps (as well as other voting changes) for states required to do so under section 5 of the Voting Rights Act (see Shelby County v. Holder). This ended the need for the Justice Dept. to preapprove redistricting maps in TX, Georgia, Alabama, several more states, and some local jurisdictions. While the court did not actually invalidate section 5, it did declare the formula that determines which states are covered under section 5 unconstitutional because it had not been updated for some time. With Democrats in control of Congress and the…
Read More
New York State Officials Sued Over Funding for Redistricting Commission

New York State Officials Sued Over Funding for Redistricting Commission

The controversy over funding of the New York Redistricting Commission has come to a head as two individuals sue the governor and other state officials over the impasse. One plaintiff is a former candidate for the state legislature and the other, a member of the commission itself. They challenge the decision to provide funding for the commission through a third-party organization as opposed to a direct appropriation, which they claim is required by the state constitutional provision establishing the commission. This is the latest in a months-long saga for the commission that began when funds were not appropriated to the…
Read More
Idaho: Review of Litigation in the 2010 Redistricting Cycle

Idaho: Review of Litigation in the 2010 Redistricting Cycle

In 2012, the Idaho Supreme Court Invalidated the legislative map adopted by Idaho Commission on Redistricting on state constitutional grounds. Twin Falls County v. Idaho Comm’n on Redistricting, No. 39373, 2012, 271 P.3d 1202 (Idaho 2012). This case involves a state constitutional challenge to the legislative apportionment plan adopted by the Idaho Commission on Redistricting. Plaintiffs argued the plan adopted by the commission violated art. III, § 5, of the Idaho Constitution, which states that “a county may be divided in creating districts only to the extent it is reasonably determined by statute that counties must be divided to create senatorial…
Read More
Highlights of the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act (H.R. 4)

Highlights of the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act (H.R. 4)

During the 116th congress in 2019, the Voting Rights Advancement Act was introduced in the Senate by Senator Leahy. The bill is expected to be reintroduced in some form in the current 117th congress. Below are the highlights of the bill’s provisions as articulated by Sen. Leahy’s office. You can read a more in-depth explanation of the first two points here. creates a new coverage formula that applies to all states and hinges on a finding of repeated voting rights violations in the preceding 25 years. establishes a targeted process for reviewing voting changes in jurisdictions nationwide, focused on measures…
Read More
Listen: Supreme Court Oral Argument in Brnovich Voting Rights Act (sec. 2) Case

Listen: Supreme Court Oral Argument in Brnovich Voting Rights Act (sec. 2) Case

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments Tuesday in Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee, a lawsuit challenging Arizona's out-of-precinct policy on Election Day, which does not count provisional ballots cast in person that were cast outside of the voter’s designated precinct and its ballot-collection law, which permits only certain persons to handle another person’s completed early ballot. The lawsuit contends these laws violate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. While redistricting maps are often challenged for minority vote dilution under Section 2 of the Act, this case involves claims of vote denial as opposed to vote dilution and centers around…
Read More