Maps in Four States Were Ruled Illegal Gerrymanders. They’re Being Used Anyway (3 Viewers)

[zztop]

This is why I have no faith in this country anymore

Maps in Four States Were Ruled Illegal Gerrymanders. They’re Being Used Anyway.

A Supreme Court shift, frowning on changes close to elections, gives House Republicans a big advantage in November.

www.nytimes.com

David Wasserman, who follows congressional redistricting for the Cook Political Report, said that using rejected maps in the four states, which make up nearly 10 percent of the seats in the House, was likely to hand Republicans five to seven House seats that they otherwise would not have won.

Some election law scholars say they are troubled by the consequences in the long run.

“We’re seeing a revolution in courts’ willingness to allow elections to go forward under illegal or unconstitutional rules,” Richard L. Hasen, a professor at the U.C.L.A. School of Law and the director of its Safeguarding Democracy Project, said in an interview. “And that’s creating a situation in which states are getting one free illegal election before they have to change their rules.”

Behind much of the change is the Supreme Court’s embrace of an informal legal doctrine stating that judges should not order changes in election procedures too close to an actual election. In a 2006 case, Purcell v. Gonzalez, the court refused to stop an Arizona voter ID law from taking effect days before an election because that could “result in voter confusion and consequent incentive to remain away from the polls.”

The Purcell principle, as it is called, offers almost no guidance beyond that. But the Supreme Court has significantly broadened its scope in this decade, mostly through rulings on applications that seek emergency relief such as stays of lower court rulings, in which the justices’ reasoning often is cryptic or even unexplained.

 

[Optimus Prime]

A federal judge in Georgia on Thursday upheld a Republican-drawn congressional map, a ruling branded “a disgrace” by voting rights advocates who claim that the latest district lines illegally dilute the voting power of minority residents.

The decision from Steve Jones set the stage for next year’s elections, with Republicans now likely to maintain their 9-5 advantage among the swing state’s 14 seats in the US House of Representatives.

In three separate but similarly worded orders, Jones rejected claims that the new maps do not do enough to help Black voters. “The court finds that the general assembly fully complied with this court’s order requiring the creation of Black-majority districts in the regions of the state where vote dilution was found,” the judge wrote.

The case is one of several pending lawsuits whose outcomes could determine which party controls the House after November’s vote. Democrats need to capture a net of five Republican seats nationally to win back a majority.

The maps were redrawn in a recent special legislative session after Jones in October ruled that a prior set of maps illegally harmed Black voters. In a 516-page order, the judge, appointed to the bench by Barack Obama, a Democrat, told legislators to create a new map that included an additional district with a Black majority or near-majority.

While the state filed an appeal, the Republican governor, Brian Kemp, also scheduled a special legislative session to comply with the order.

In early December, the Republican-controlled legislature approved a map that adds Black-majority districts, including one in Congress, two in the state senate and five in the state house.

But in doing so, Republicans also dismantled Georgia’s seventh district, held by the gun-control advocate Lucy McBath, a Black woman. Situated in a suburb north-east of Atlanta, it is composed mostly of minority voters, including Black, Latino and Asian residents.

The court’s decision means that McBath is likely to have to seek to run in a new district for the second election in a row, after Republicans drew her out of the district she originally won. She wrote in a fundraising email on Thursday: “I won’t let Republicans decide when my time in Congress is over.”

Democrats and voting rights groups had argued that the revised map violated Jones’s ruling, which had said the state could not remedy the problem “by eliminating minority districts elsewhere”. Republicans asserted that their effort complied with the decision because McBath’s district was not majority Black.

But LaTosha Brown, co-founder of the Atlanta-based Black Voters Matter fund, suggested Republicans and the gun lobby intentionally targeted a district where McBath has been able to build a multiracial coalition. She said of Thursday’s ruling: “It’s a disgrace. It is reflective of how politicised the courts are.

“It amplifies the reason why we need a strong federal voting rights law. We need something that is ironclad and even holds the bench accountable. They’ve weakened the law in such a way that the judges are in many ways not even interpreting what the law is saying.”…….

Win for Republicans as US judge upholds Georgia congressional map

Critics call decision by Steve Jones a ‘disgrace’ and say recently redrawn maps dilute voting power of minority residents

www.theguardian.com

 

[GrandAdmiral]

So the LA Supreme Court is asking the state to redraw the Court's districts as well to create a second minority district.

Louisiana Supreme Court tell lawmakers to redraw election maps in majority ruling

"We feel the time to act relative to these issues is now," The Louisiana Supreme Court said on Wednesday.

www.wwltv.com

 

[Optimus Prime]

Guess this can go here
==================

A little over nine months after he was sworn in to his first term in Congress, Jeff Jackson, a freshman US representative for North Carolina, announced he would leave the body at the end of his term.

To an outsider, that might seem like a surprising decision. In just his first few months in Congress, Jackson had become well-known for smart, short videos explaining what was going on at the Capitol. By April, he had more followers on TikTok than any other member of Congress, the Washington Post reported (as of mid-December he had 2.5 million). By all accounts, he was a rising star.

But the reason for his planned departure was simple – it was impossible for him to win re-election. In October, Republicans enacted a new congressional map that reconfigured the boundaries of his district. They cracked the district near Charlotte, which Jackson won by more than 15 points in 2022, and divided voters into two districts that heavily favor GOP voters. It was an effort made possible by the new Republican majority on the North Carolina supreme court, which reversed a key rulinglimiting extreme partisan gerrymandering it issued just months ago. Jackson announced he would run for attorney general in the state instead.

The Guardian spoke to Jackson about gerrymandering, what he’s learned in Congress, and his decision to leave. This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

You get that phone call – and you have no chance of winning re-election. What’s that like?

To be honest, we knew it was very likely to end up that way. I was not shocked. They had absolute power to draw almost any map they wanted. And we all know what absolute power does to politicians. Frankly, it would have been a shock if we hadn’t seen this level of corruption from them.

So you sort of knew that this was coming.

I didn’t know it to a certainty. And I didn’t have any advance information. I just knew the legal freedom that our court was going to grant them and I knew what their incentives were. So if you have that information you can predict the outcome.

Can I ask you what happened with the supreme court in North Carolina. Obviously, they switched their rulings on the districts within a matter of months after control of the court flipped. And some people might look at that and say that’s not surprising, the partisan makeup changes, the rulings change. Is there something there that you think people should pay more attention to?

On its face it’s deeply concerning. I don’t think you have to know much about the court or politics to see exactly what happened here. This is one of those instances where one of the most obvious explanations is simply the right one. The court was elected with a different partisan composition and they acted in a partisan way to accommodate their party. I think the simple read here is the right one.

And do you think people pay close enough attention to what’s happening in supreme court races? I mean, there was one in North Carolina that was decided by 400 votes.

I am absolutely positive that they do not. Just with my conversations with voters over the years, the judicial races are the ones furthest from people’s radar.…….

‘They had absolute power’: the US congressman driven out by Republican gerrymandering

Jeff Jackson made a splash in his single term but will be running for North Carolina attorney general after a newly partisan state supreme court redrew his district map

www.theguardian.com

 

[GrandAdmiral]

Let me make myself clear...

I will vote for that same Butterfinger that ran against Jeff Landry than to vote for Cleo Fields.

Cleo Fields announces run for Congress in new 2nd Black majority district

Louisiana State Senator Cleo Fields has announced that he will run for Congress in the state’s new second Black majority congressional district.

www.wafb.com

In other words, if Graves runs for re-election, he's getting my vote again.

 

[zztop]

Wisconsin's Democratic governor vetoes Republican map as another redistricting court fight looms

Wisconsin Democratic Gov. Tony Evers has vetoed a redistricting proposal that the Republican-controlled Legislature passed last week in a last-ditch effort to avert the drawing of legislative boundaries by the state Supreme Court.

apnews.com

 

[Optimus Prime]

Wisconsin lawmakers voted on Tuesday to adopt legislative maps drawn by the Democratic governor, Tony Evers – inching the state closer to undoing the extreme gerrymander that has ensured Republican control of the state for more than a decade.

The pair of votes in the Republican-dominatedstate assembly and state senate are a sign that the years-long battle over Wisconsin’s legislative maps may be finally drawing to a close, giving Democrats a chance to win control of the state legislature in upcoming elections for the first time since 2012.

The vote is the result of a December ruling from the Wisconsin supreme court that the current state assembly and senate maps are unconstitutional, ordering the state to adopt new legislative maps before the 2024 election – and setting a mid-March deadline.

Republican and Democratic lawmakers, the governor and multiple third party groups submitted revised maps to the court for consideration, and in a 1 February report, consultants hired by the court to review them said that the GOP-drawn maps maintained the partisan gerrymander and “do not deserve further consideration”. The maps submitted by Democrats retained a Republican advantage, the consultants found, but to a much-reduced degree.……

Wisconsin lawmakers adopt new legislative maps that could undo gerrymandering

Votes by Republican-dominated state assembly and state senate signal that the years-long battle may be finally drawing to a close

www.theguardian.com

 

[zztop]

I can only guess they were more afraid of the maps that the court would have drawn up vs the one (D)s proposed

GOP-led Wisconsin Legislature passes Democratic governor's legislative maps

Wisconsin’s GOP-controlled Legislature has passed legislative maps that were proposed by Democratic Gov. Tony Evers.

apnews.com

The Assembly and Senate passed the bill in quick succession Tuesday, sending it to Evers. Last week, he promised to sign his maps into law if the Legislature passed them with no changes. Republicans did tweak the language to ensure the new maps don’t take effect until November, but it’s unclear if that’s a dealbreaker for the governor. He did not return a message seeking comment Tuesday. His spokesperson, Britt Cudaback, tweeted after the votes that Evers position has not changed. She did not elaborate.

 

[zztop]

He was a lot nicer about it than I would have been

Wisconsin’s Democratic governor signs his new legislative maps into law after Republicans pass them

Democrats hailed the signing as a major political victory in the swing state where the Legislature has been firmly under Republican control for more than a decade.

apnews.com

“When I promised I wanted fair maps — not maps that are better for one party or another, including my own — I damn well meant it,” Evers said prior to signing the maps into law at the state Capitol. “Wisconsin is not a red state or a blue state — we’re a purple state, and I believe our maps should reflect that basic fact.

 

[superchuck500]

 

[MT15]

As they intended.

 

[zztop]

I'm sure I, and others, said this before. There should be some harsh penalty for these stalling tactics.

 

[Optimus Prime]

Montgomery, Alabama is the birthplace of the Confederacy and of the civil rights movement. Its history speaks volumes about the state of American democracy. It is perhaps ironic, then, how the last generation of its voters have largely been silenced.

For decades, Alabama’s capital city has been split between two or three different congressional districts – a deliberate effort by state leaders to prevent power from accreting to Black voters. Recently the region has been represented by a white Freedom Caucus Republican.

But last year a bruising court battle forced Alabama to redraw its district lines, finally placing the entire city and a wide swath of Alabama’s Black Belt of African American residents in the same congressional district.

The runoff for the newly drawn congressional district is Tuesday. Now Montgomery – and Alabama’s Black voters – have to be heard by anyone who wants to serve them in Congress.


“We want somebody who is philosophically aligned with the city,” said Steven Reed, the mayor of Montgomery. “On issues around voting rights, on issues around healthcare, Medicaid expansion and access to healthcare, we would like to have an advocate.”

“From our standpoint, there’s a tremendous need for the congressman to be able to leverage their position in the United States House of Representatives to bring resources back.”……

Alabama’s Black voters seek chance to be heard after years of being silenced

Montgomery, the state’s capital, is included in a new congressional district, and on Tuesday, a runoff will decide who stands in November

www.theguardian.com

 

[Optimus Prime]

I know a few times there’s been a push to simplify the language on ballot proposals/amendments

I’ve seen it myself many times over the years:

a long confusing paragraph on a ballot that you’re not sure exactly what it’s asking and not sure if you vote yes does that mean you’re for the thing or against the thing?

And the thing is simply “Should the post office parking lots be repaved?”

I don’t know why they have to be so confusing. Although I'm sure the answer is “it’s a feature not a bug”

Unless I’m mistaken the wording for Brexit was more or less just

“Should England leave the European Union?”

Yes_______ No________


==================================
Ohio voters could see an extremely misleading description of a proposal to curb extreme partisan gerrymandering on their November ballots after Republicans approved controversial language on Friday.

At issue is how to describe a proposal that would create a 15-person citizen commission to draw congressional and state legislative districts in Ohio.

The commission – five Democrats, five Republicans and five independents – would be prohibited from drawing districts that “that favor one political party and disfavor others”.

But the language approved on Friday by the Republican-controlled Ohio ballot board misrepresents the proposal – instead leading voters to think they have less power in the process.

It says the commissioners would be“required to gerrymander the boundaries of state legislative and congressional districts to favor the two largest political parties in the state of Ohio”.

The GOP-approved summary also misrepresents how difficult it would be to remove a commissioner from the panel, telling voters the proposal would “prevent a commission member from being removed, except by a vote of their fellow commission members, even for incapacity, willful neglect of duty or gross misconduct”.

But the proposal expressly says that commissioners can be removed from “wanton and willful neglect of duty or gross misconduct or malfeasance in office, incapacity or inability to perform his or her duties, or behavior involving moral turpitude or other acts that undermine the public’s trust in the commission and the redistricting process”.

It says that only the commission can remove a commissioner after giving public notice and holding a hearing with public comment.

Supporters of the amendment, a coalition called Citizens not Politicians, said they would sue over the language in the Ohio supreme court next week.

“It’s one grotesque abuse of power after another from politicians desperate to protect the current system that only benefits themselves and their lobbyist friends,” said Maureen O’Connor, a Republican who recently retired from the state supreme court and helped draft the amendment.

“Do the politicians not see how angry voters are when they keep breaking the law to protect their own power? Secretary of State Frank LaRose voted seven times for maps that courts ruled were unconstitutional, and this week he violates the constitution with objectively false ballot language. It’s a desperate abuse of power, and it’s not going to work.”……

The language approved on Friday, reportedly drafted by Ohio’s secretary of state, Frank LaRose, also says the measure would “repeal constitutional protections against gerrymandering approved by nearly three quarters of Ohio electors participating in the statewide elections of 2015 and 2018”.

While Ohio voters did approve anti-gerrymandering reforms in those years, Republicans ignored them when they redrew districts after the 2020 census. Organizers drafted the amendment pushing for the independent commission after Republicans were able to keep gerrymandered districts in place in 2022.


“I’ve never seen ballot language this dishonest and so blatantly illegal,” Don McTigue, a lawyer representing the group pushing for the anti-gerrymandering amendment, said in a statement.

“Ohio’s constitution and Ohio state law explicitly require the secretary of state and ballot board to provide voters with accurate and fair language about constitutional amendments when they vote. It’s insulting to voters, and I’m embarrassed for the secretary of state.”……..

Ohio Republicans approve misleading ballot language to favor gerrymandering

Supporters of the anti-gerrymandering amendment call GOP-controlled board ‘dishonest’ for warping proposal

www.theguardian.com

 

[bird]

I know a few times there’s been a push to simplify the language on ballot proposals/amendments

I’ve seen it myself many times over the years:

a long confusing paragraph on a ballot that you’re not sure exactly what it’s asking and not sure if you vote yes does that mean you’re for the thing or against the thing?

And the thing is simply “Should the post office parking lots be repaved?”

I don’t know why they have to be so confusing. Although I'm sure the answer is “it’s a feature not a bug”

Unless I’m mistaken the wording for Brexit was more or less just

“Should England leave the European Union?”

Yes_______ No________


==================================
Ohio voters could see an extremely misleading description of a proposal to curb extreme partisan gerrymandering on their November ballots after Republicans approved controversial language on Friday.

At issue is how to describe a proposal that would create a 15-person citizen commission to draw congressional and state legislative districts in Ohio.

The commission – five Democrats, five Republicans and five independents – would be prohibited from drawing districts that “that favor one political party and disfavor others”.

But the language approved on Friday by the Republican-controlled Ohio ballot board misrepresents the proposal – instead leading voters to think they have less power in the process.

It says the commissioners would be“required to gerrymander the boundaries of state legislative and congressional districts to favor the two largest political parties in the state of Ohio”.

The GOP-approved summary also misrepresents how difficult it would be to remove a commissioner from the panel, telling voters the proposal would “prevent a commission member from being removed, except by a vote of their fellow commission members, even for incapacity, willful neglect of duty or gross misconduct”.

But the proposal expressly says that commissioners can be removed from “wanton and willful neglect of duty or gross misconduct or malfeasance in office, incapacity or inability to perform his or her duties, or behavior involving moral turpitude or other acts that undermine the public’s trust in the commission and the redistricting process”.

It says that only the commission can remove a commissioner after giving public notice and holding a hearing with public comment.

Supporters of the amendment, a coalition called Citizens not Politicians, said they would sue over the language in the Ohio supreme court next week.

“It’s one grotesque abuse of power after another from politicians desperate to protect the current system that only benefits themselves and their lobbyist friends,” said Maureen O’Connor, a Republican who recently retired from the state supreme court and helped draft the amendment.

“Do the politicians not see how angry voters are when they keep breaking the law to protect their own power? Secretary of State Frank LaRose voted seven times for maps that courts ruled were unconstitutional, and this week he violates the constitution with objectively false ballot language. It’s a desperate abuse of power, and it’s not going to work.”……

The language approved on Friday, reportedly drafted by Ohio’s secretary of state, Frank LaRose, also says the measure would “repeal constitutional protections against gerrymandering approved by nearly three quarters of Ohio electors participating in the statewide elections of 2015 and 2018”.

While Ohio voters did approve anti-gerrymandering reforms in those years, Republicans ignored them when they redrew districts after the 2020 census. Organizers drafted the amendment pushing for the independent commission after Republicans were able to keep gerrymandered districts in place in 2022.


“I’ve never seen ballot language this dishonest and so blatantly illegal,” Don McTigue, a lawyer representing the group pushing for the anti-gerrymandering amendment, said in a statement.

“Ohio’s constitution and Ohio state law explicitly require the secretary of state and ballot board to provide voters with accurate and fair language about constitutional amendments when they vote. It’s insulting to voters, and I’m embarrassed for the secretary of state.”……..

Ohio Republicans approve misleading ballot language to favor gerrymandering

Supporters of the anti-gerrymandering amendment call GOP-controlled board ‘dishonest’ for warping proposal

www.theguardian.com

Ah, that’s my state. Trying to out Alabama/Mississippi every other state.

I once contacted David Yost, state AG, about some issue and got back the standard bullschlitz about government overreach.

 

[RobF]

I know a few times there’s been a push to simplify the language on ballot proposals/amendments

I’ve seen it myself many times over the years:

a long confusing paragraph on a ballot that you’re not sure exactly what it’s asking and not sure if you vote yes does that mean you’re for the thing or against the thing?

And the thing is simply “Should the post office parking lots be repaved?”

I don’t know why they have to be so confusing. Although I'm sure the answer is “it’s a feature not a bug”

Unless I’m mistaken the wording for Brexit was more or less just

“Should England leave the European Union?”

Yes_______ No________

I'm not sure the Brexit question is a good example here.

It was technically a bit different to the above (and some people in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland get quite cross about people saying 'England' instead of 'the United Kingdom... ').

The final question was "Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?", with the two options being, "Remain a member of the European Union," and, "Leave the European Union," accordingly. Initially the question was just going to be, "Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union?" with the options of "yes" or "no", but they changed that as they felt it wasn't neutral enough.

So the wording was clear and unbiased, but, I think questions put up for votes like this should have to be clear, unbiased, and specific, and that's where I think the Brexit question failed. It basically boiled down to, "Should we continue to do the specific thing we're doing now, or, y'know, something else completely undefined which you can feel free to imagine in whatever way you would like best."

It'd be like asking, here, something like, "Should the Ohio Redistricting Commission continue to draw Ohio's districts, or should it not." That'd be clearer and a lot less biased, but it'd still need to be a lot more specific.

 

[Optimus Prime]

I'm not sure the Brexit question is a good example here.

It was technically a bit different to the above (and some people in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland get quite cross about people saying 'England' instead of 'the United Kingdom... ').

The final question was "Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?", with the two options being, "Remain a member of the European Union," and, "Leave the European Union," accordingly. Initially the question was just going to be, "Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union?" with the options of "yes" or "no", but they changed that as they felt it wasn't neutral enough.

So the wording was clear and unbiased, but, I think questions put up for votes like this should have to be clear, unbiased, and specific, and that's where I think the Brexit question failed. It basically boiled down to, "Should we continue to do the specific thing we're doing now, or, y'know, something else completely undefined which you can feel free to imagine in whatever way you would like best."

It'd be like asking, here, something like, "Should the Ohio Redistricting Commission continue to draw Ohio's districts, or should it not." That'd be clearer and a lot less biased, but it'd still need to be a lot more specific.

I knew that too about England not being the whole of UK, sorry about that

You certainly know more about it than I do, I just meant the simplicity of the language on the ballot vs some of what I see on my own

 

[RobF]

I knew that too about England not being the whole of UK, sorry about that

You certainly know more about it than I do, I just meant the simplicity of the language on the ballot vs some of what I see on my own

I thought you would, hence the .

But yes, I know what you mean and I agree. I was just adding the caveat that simplicity can be abused by being too open-ended.

 

[Optimus Prime]

BAD - "We don't want those black people in that area to get their own congressperson!"

GOOD - "We don't those Democrats* in that area to get their own congressperson!"

*who just happen to be mostly black

======================
NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) — A federal judicial panel has dismissed a lawsuit alleging that Tennessee's U.S. House maps and those for the state Senate amount to unconstitutional racial gerrymandering.

“In sum, the complaint alleges facts that are consistent with a racial gerrymander," stated the ruling, which was issued Wednesday. "But the facts are also consistent with a political gerrymander.”

The complaint was the first court challenge over a 2022 congressional redistricting map that carved up Democratic-leaning Nashville to help Republicans flip a seat in last year’s elections, a move that critics claimed was done to dilute the power of Black voters and other communities of color in one of the state's few Democratic strongholds.

The lawsuit also challenged state Senate District 31 in majority-Black Shelby County, including part of Memphis, using similar arguments and saying that the white voting age population went up under the new maps. A Republican now holds that seat.

However, the three federal judges who wrote the ruling argued there was another clear motivation behind Tennessee’s Republican state legislative supermajority by pointing to “naked partisanship" as the likely “straightforward explanation.”

In 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that disputes over partisan gerrymandering of congressional and legislative districts are none of its business, limiting those claims to state courts under their own constitutions and laws. Most recently, the high court upheld South Carolina’s congressional map in a 6-3 decision that said the state General Assembly did not use race to draw districts based on the 2020 Census.

In Tennessee's case, the plaintiffs included the Tennessee State Conference of the NAACP, the African American Clergy Collective of Tennessee, the Equity Alliance, the League of Women Voters of Tennessee and several Tennessee voters, including former Democratic state Sen. Brenda Gilmore.

After Nashville was splintered into three congressional districts, former Democratic U.S. Rep. Jim Cooper of Nashville declined to seek reelection, claiming he couldn't win under the new layout. Ultimately, Rep. John Rose won reelection by about 33 percentage points, Rep. Mark Green won another term by 22 points, and Rep. Andy Ogles won his first term by 13 points in the district vacated by Cooper.

Tennessee now has eight Republicans in the U.S. House, with just one Democrat left in Memphis Rep. Steve Cohen.

In the original complaint, the plaintiffs argued that all three of the “candidates of choice” for minority voters lost their congressional bids in the Nashville area in 2022.

The judges countered that the lawsuit had to “more than plausibly allege that Tennessee’s legislators knew that their Republican-friendly map would harm voters who preferred Democratic candidates—including the higher percentage of minority voters who preferred those candidates.”...........

Judges dismiss suit alleging Tennessee's political maps discriminate against communities of color

A federal judicial panel has dismissed a lawsuit alleging that Tennessee’s U.S. House maps and those for the state Senate amount to unconstitutional racial gerrymandering.

apnews.com