Are Redistricting Commissions in Danger?

Are Redistricting Commissions in Danger?

Arizona, California and more recently, Ohio are among the handful of states that have established independent redistricting commissions by ballot measures. The U.S. Supreme Court recently upheld a challenge to Arizona's commission, but at least one election law expert warns that the court may reverse itself on this question in the future. Rick Hasen, Professor of law and political science at the University of California, Irvine believes this is a real possibility. Read the article in the Atlantic.
Read More

Supreme Court Declines to Hear Pennsylvania Republican’s Congressional Map Appeal

On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari to Republican lawmakers in the Pennsylvania legislature after a January ruling by the Pa. State Supreme Court invalidating the congressional map enacted by the body in 2011.  (more…)
Read More
Listen to the NCSL Webinar on Recent Supreme Court Gerrymandering Decisions

Listen to the NCSL Webinar on Recent Supreme Court Gerrymandering Decisions

Last week the National Conference of State Legislatures hosted this webinar on the recent Supreme Court Partisan Gerrymandering decisions.  You can watch/listen below.  The discussion gives good insight into the current posture of the litigation in Wisconsin and Maryland and other states.  (more…)
Read More
Georgia’s Mid-Decade Redistricting Causes a Stir

Georgia’s Mid-Decade Redistricting Causes a Stir

Georgia - Traditionally reserved for the beginning of the decade, redistricting is on the table again in Georgia as a proposal for new House districts has cleared that chamber and is being considered in the Georgia senate.  As a practical matter, redistricting usually only happens once in a decade.  Although, in most states there is no law that would limit it to that, the task is such a delicate, complex and highly controversial one that most do not dare to go through it any more than they have to. Georgia's republican controlled legislature has got the attention of former attorney general Eric Holder,…
Read More
Maryland Judge Orders Legislative Leaders to Testify in Partisan Gerrymandering Case

Maryland Judge Orders Legislative Leaders to Testify in Partisan Gerrymandering Case

Maryland - Nearly four years after Bethesda, Md. resident Stephen M. Shapiro and other Maryland voters filed a partisan gerrymandering lawsuit against Maryland's congressional district map, a judge has ordered the Speaker of the Maryland House of Delegates and the President of the Maryland Senate to testify in the case and turn over documents, rejecting claims of legislative privilege. Shapiro's case has wound its way through the courts from its initial filing in 2013, you can read the original complaint here.   A district court judge dismissed the case but Shapiro won his appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled…
Read More
Meet The Democrat’s Secret Redistricting Weapon in 2020

Meet The Democrat’s Secret Redistricting Weapon in 2020

Watch MSNBC interview Kelly Ward, former executive director of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee about her new role as the Democrat party's answer to the wildly successful national Republican redistricting strategy.   Ward is interim executive director of the National Democratic Redistricting Committee, - a project of President Obama and former Attorney General, Eric Holder - which will be gearing up for the next redistricting battle in 2020. Her interview begins around the 4:00 min mark.  
Read More
U.S. Supreme Court: Shelby County Cannot Recoup Attorney Fees for Winning Landmark Voting Rights Case

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

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.
Read More