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
Apportionment Numbers Delayed Until March

Apportionment Numbers Delayed Until March

"Uncertainty over the timing of congressional apportionment increased Monday, as government lawyers told a federal judge the Census Bureau's new internal target date for finalizing state population counts is March 6." (Wash. Post) The remarks were made in a case management hearing for a lawsuit against the administration in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Read the Post article here.
Read More
December Redistricting Update

December Redistricting Update

December was all about the apportionment numbers when it comes to redistricting news. Let's get you up-to-date. White House Memo on Excluding “Aliens” from the Official Apportionment Count The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in Trump v. New York on Nov. 30 pursuant to an expedited schedule given that the U.S. Census Bureau had a Dec 31 statutory deadline to report the official state population counts to be used for apportioning U.S. House seats among the states. Just before Christmas, the court released a per curiam opinion declining to decide the issue on technical grounds. The issue being whether…
Read More

Listen: Supreme Court Oral Argument in Trump Apportionment / Citizenship Case

On Monday the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in Trump v. New York. This case challenged an executive memo directing the Census Bureau to report official congressional apportionment data so that it excludes the count of non-citizens. For an in-depth analysis of the arguments, read SCOTUSBlog.com's report. Most expert observers say the court seemed preoccupied with the "ripeness" of the issue, or in layman's parlance - whether or not the administration has done anything yet that could possibly violate a statute or the constitution. Listen to the audio below. https://youtu.be/ePChyVCpI6A
Read More

CA Federal Court Panel Invalidates Presidential Order to Exclude “Illegal Aliens” from Apportionment Count

On Thursday (Oct. 22) a three-judge panel of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Jose Division) issued a final order and opinion invalidating the president's July memorandum that ordered census apportionment numbers exclude undocumented immigrants. A copy of the opinion is here. A federal district court in New York was the first to invalidate the July memorandum in September. That case has been scheduled for oral argument before the Supreme Court on November 30th. The San Jose court declared the presidential memorandum a "violation of the Apportionment and Enumeration Clauses of Article I, Section 2…
Read More
Analysis: Do Redistricting Maps with Deviations Under 10% Violate the Equal Population Rule? Sometimes.

Analysis: Do Redistricting Maps with Deviations Under 10% Violate the Equal Population Rule? Sometimes.

Most legal challenges to redistricting maps based on population deviation center around deviations that are too large. However, there are a handful of cases in which a court has found a map with minimal deviations (under 10%) to be unconstitutional. What is minimal? The equal population or “one-person, one-vote standard requires general population equality between districts, but there is no precise number or percentage that defines constitutionality. Instead, the Supreme Court interprets this constitutional requirement for congressional districts to mean “strict equality,” and for legislative and other local maps, districts need only to be “substantially equal.” In practice, a clear…
Read More

Supreme Court Schedules November Oral Argument in Undocumented Immigrant Apportionment Case

On Friday, the Supreme Court announced it would expedite an appeal by the Trump administration after a lower district court halted the administration’s plan to exclude people who are in the country illegally from the official apportionment count numbers used in allocating seats in the House of Representatives. Read a synopsis below. Oral arguments are scheduled for November 30, just one month before the statutory deadline for delivering the apportionment numbers to the president.It is not clear if the Census Bureau will be able to meet the December 31 deadline for delivering apportionment numbers, nor is it clear how it…
Read More

Supreme Court Stays Lower Court Restraining Order, Allows Census Counting to End Early

On Sept. 24th the U.S. District Court of the Northern District of California issued a preliminary injunction that enjoined the U.S. Census Bureau from ending its counting operations on September 30, extending the time to Oct 31. The Supreme Court issued a stay of this order last Tuesday allowing for census counting to end on Oct. 15. The order included a lone dissent from Justice Sotomayer noting " the government has not satisfied its “especially heavy burden to justify a stay pending appeal of the lower court’s injunction." Read coverage on CNN, NYT, CNBC, and Politico.
Read More
Federal Judge Reprimands Census Bureau for Violating  its Restraining Order

Federal Judge Reprimands Census Bureau for Violating its Restraining Order

On Sept. 24th the U.S. District Court of the Northern District of California issued a preliminary injunction that enjoins the U.S. Census Bureau from ending its counting operations on September 30, extending the time to Oct 31. On the afternoon of Sept. 28th, despite that court order, the Census Bureau tweeted (see below) that it would be ending field operations on Oct. 5th. Chaos ensued. In a new order issued by the district court on Oct 1, the court clarifies its original order and reprimands administration officials for " further undermining trust in the Bureau and its partners, sowing more…
Read More