|
2008
Good Intentions Could Harm Redistricting
Ballot Measure
Los Angeles Times
April 28, 2008
Redistricting On Track To Qualify,
Consultant Says
New America Foundation.com
April 23, 2008
Why Are GOP Contributors Putting Big Money
Into Redistricting Reform?
California Progress Report.com
April 19, 2008
Gov's
Giving To Remap Measure Tops $1 million
Sacramento Bee Capital Alert
April 21, 2008
‘Due
Process’ Democrats Have Their Heads Buried in the California Sand
California Progress Report.com
April 20, 2008
Opinion: Seeing The Light
Los Angeles Daily News
April 19, 2008
California
Voters FIRST Presents A Balanced And Bipartisan Effort For Redistricting
Reform
California Progress Report.com
April 17, 2008
Schwarzenegger's
Redistricting Plan Comes Under Fire
Contra Costa Times
April 17, 2008
Group Says Plan Will Put A Stop To
Gerrymandering
The Simi Valley Acron
April 4, 2008
The Need For Redistricting Reform From
This California Democrat’s Perspective
California Progress Report.com
April 4, 2008
Labor Says No To
Schwarzenegger/Republican/Common Cause Redistricting Measure
The California Majority Report.com
April 02, 2008
Revenge In Attack On Legislative
Redistricting?
California Progress Report.com
March 31, 2008
Weintraub: Governor Gets Another Shot At
Redistricting Reform
Sacramento Bee
March 30, 2008
Editorial: Can't Legislature Do Better Than
Bills On Dogs, Donkeys?
The Fresno Bee
March 30, 2008
Walters: Voters Irate At Budget Posturing
Sacramento Bee
March 28, 2008
New Foundation To Campaign For More Efficient
California Government
Sacramento Bee
March 27, 2008
Editorial: California Voters Should Support
Redistricting Ballot Measure
Fresno Bee
March 24, 2008
Editorial: Redraw the Map
Los Angeles Daily News
March 22, 2008
Walters: Court Ruling Offers Hope to
Dysfunctional California Politics
Sacramento Bee
March 19, 2008
Supreme Court to Hear Major Redistricting
Case
The Thicket at State Legislatures (ncsl.com)
March 18, 2008
Editorial: Let Citizens Redraw the Map
The Torrance Daily Breeze
March 17, 2008
Walters: Redistrict Reformers Miss Mark
Sacramento Bee
March 10, 2008
Let Citizens
Redraw Map
San Gabriel Valley Tribune
March 9, 2008
Governor Proposes Redistricting Ballot
Measure
North County Times
March 8, 2008
Redistricting Initiative Has Strong
Republican Backing
San Jose Mercury News
March 6, 2008
Governor Gathers Signatures to Qualify
Redistricting Measure
San Jose Mercury News
March 4, 2008
Manipulative Lawmakers Playing To The Crowd
Fresno Bee
February 14, 2008
State Voters Need To Do What Lawmakers
Won't
Los Angeles Daily News
February 14, 2008
Editorial: What We Need In Sacramento,
Redistricting, Not Retaliation
San Jose Mercury News
February 14, 2008
Redistricting Reform, Not Longer Terms, Is
The Answer
California Republic.org
February 12, 2008
The Buzz: A Hardball Tactic Could Ricochet
Sacramento Bee
February 11, 2008
Wake Up, Sacramento Media! Wake Up! Wake
Up! Wake Up!
San Diego Union Tribune
February 8, 2008
Editorial: Passive Aggressive Lawmakers
Just Play to the Crowd
Fresno Bee
February 8, 2008
Nunez Takes Blame For Prop. 93 Loss
Los Angeles Daily News
February 7, 2008
Weingand: Voters Got A Whiff and Said 'No'
Sacramento Bee
February 7, 2008
Lawmakers Believe In Term Limits But
Oppose The Measure
North County Times
February 4, 2008
Good For Us
Los Angeles Times
February 4, 2008
Commentary: A Conversation with Gov. Arnold
Schwarzenegger
Sacramento Bee
January 20, 2008
Walters: Two Party Structure Under Fire
Sacramento Bee
January 18, 2008
Walters: Governor's Brownian Flip-Flops
Sacramento Bee
January 16, 2008
Editorial: Corruption of a Good Idea
San Francisco Chronicle
January 15, 2008
Governor Supports Term Limit Measure
Sacramento Bee
January 15, 2008
A Deceptive Prop. 93
San Francisco Chronicle
January 10, 2008
Use Prop. 93 To Say 'No"
dailybreeze.com
January 3, 2008
more
|
 |
Supreme Court to Hear Major Redistricting Case
by Tim Storey
The Thicket at State Legislatures (ncsl.com)
March 18, 2008
It was starting to look as though the decade would wind down quietly
without a blockbuster redistricting case from the U.S. Supreme
Court. There have been a couple of key decisions such as the
partisan gerrymandering case from Pennsylvania and the Texas
mid-decade redistricting case, but neither of those decisions packed
a wallop that dramatically changed the rules as we know them now.
However, on Monday the Supremes agreed to hear a redistricting case
on appeal from the North Carolina State Supreme Court that could
lead to a major new chapter in redistricting law. My beloved
home state has given us many landmark redistricting cases including
Thornburg v. Gingles and Shaw v. Reno, so this case, Bartlett v.
Strickland, could extend North Carolina's legacy in redistricting
litigation.
The Bartlett case comes from Pender County in southeastern North
Carolina--just north of Wilmington. The North Carolina
Legislature enacted a State House redistricting plan that partially
divided Pender County in order to draw House District 18 with a 39
percent African-American voting age population.
The Legislature said that this district was required by section 2
of the Voting Rights Act and thus necessitated the division of
Pender County into two state house districts, even though that
violated a state constitutional provision to keep counties whole
when possible and when not in contravention of federal law.
The state of North Carolina argued that the black population, if
kept whole in one district, could elect a candidate of their choice
due to consistent and measurable cross-over voting by white voters,
so the district was necessary to comply with section 2 of the
federal Voting Rights Act (VRA).
Section 2 of VRA applies to all 50 states, like most federal
laws, meaning that any precedent in an eventual opinion in this case
could have far reaching effects for all states when redistricting
cranks up in a couple of years. Anyway, back to the case at
hand...
The North Carolina Supreme Court eventually ruled against the
state, holding that established redistricting case law only mandates
that a state draw a majority-minority district in compliance with
the Voting Rights Act when a minority group is sufficiently large
enough to be 50% or more of a single member district.
Therefore, the legislature violated the state constitutional mandate
to keep Pender County whole in the districting plan. This is a
vast oversimplification, so I encourage you to read the decision
itself, and read the chapter of NCSL's redistricting law book on the
Voting Rights Act if you really want detailed background.
More details and a strange twist to the story after the jump.
North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper appealed the state
high court's ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court. Multiple
"friend of the court" briefs were filed asserting that
various federal courts are in conflict on the question of whether
the Voting Rights Act requires states to draw districts to comply
with the Voting Rights Act even if those districts would not be over
50% minority population. These districts are sometimes called
coalition, influence or crossover districts. There are subtle
distinctions between each of these.
At least four Justices on the Supreme Court agreed with
petitioners and granted the request to hear the case. By
taking the case, the SCOTUS appears willing to give states clear
guidance on this question in advance of the 2010 redistricting
cycle. If you go to his page and scroll down to the case
titled Bartlett v Strickland, you will find links to various filings
asking the Supreme Court to hear the case including a brief filed by
Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland, and Ohio as well as a brief from
legislators in New York and Ohio.
I can tell by the marked increase in calls and e-mails I've been
getting from states over the past few months that redistricting is
looming ever closer. The Supreme Court will not hear this case
until next term, so a decision is not likely until perhaps as late
as the middle of 2009. Bartlett v. Strickland could be the
colossal case of this decade and dictate many new rules for 2011
redistricting. There's one thing that you can almost certainly
take to the bank--as goes Justice Kennedy, so goes this case.
The Court is very likely to be evenly divided with Justice Kennedy
being the swing vote. Justice Kennedy holds the fate of
redistricting and its practitioners in his hands. Please
forgive me for closing this way, but stay tuned.
By the way, this case has one odd footnote. The legislator
currently representing North Carolina House District 18 is
Representative Thomas Wright. Rep. Wright is in serious
trouble with his peers in the North Carolina House because of
alleged financial misconduct. The House will meet in an
historic special session on Thursday to vote on the expulsion of
Rep. Wright from the General Assembly. Rep. Wright could
become the first legislator expelled by the North Carolina House
since 1880.
|
