Redistricting in America

The Voting Rights Act was enacted to make “the promise of the right to vote under the 15th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution a reality, ninety-five years after [its] passage”. Under the Voting Rights Act of 1965, sixteen states are required to submit any redistricting plans to the U.S. Department of Justice for preclearance. Preclearance is defined as the process of seeking U.S. Department of Justice approval for all changes related to voting. Section 5 of the Act requires that the United States Department of Justice or a three-judge panel of the United States District Court for District of Columbia “preclear” any attempt to change “any voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure with respect to voting…” in any “covered jurisdiction”.

Continued...

The Supreme Court decided on January 20th to stay the ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in the matter of West Virginia’s new congressional districts, meaning that upcoming congressional elections will be conducted in the new districts created by West Virginia’s legislature following the 2010 Census. While a stay means that the issue will be revisited at a later time, there is a significant chance that the Supreme Court’s ruling will mean an end to questions over the new congressional districts’ legality. In a statement, West Virginia Senate President Jeff Kessler noted that the entire Supreme Court considered the request for a stay, a move that “tells me [him] there’s a significant likelihood that the permanent relief that would be requested would be granted.”

Continued...

On January 17th, Arizona’s Independent Redistricting Commission (IRC) officially approved the state’s new Congressional districts.  The vote was a major milestone in this year’s particularly tumultuous redistricting process.  The Commission split along party lines, with the two Democratic members supporting the redistricting plan and the two Republican members opposing it.  Independent Chairwoman Colleen Mathis cast her swing vote in favor of the plan, making the final vote 3-2.

Republican Governor Jan Brewer interrupted the process in late October when she impeached Chairwoman Mathis.  Governor Brewer cited “gross misconduct” and violations of the state’s Open Meeting Law as grounds for removing Mathis.  On November 1, the State Senate voted 21-6 to remove Mathis.  Mathis sued, however, and the Arizona Supreme Court overturned the removal order on November 17.  The Court gave no official reason for reinstating Mathis, but Vice Chief Justice Andrew Hurwitz later stated that the Governor had failed to prove her allegations against Mathis. 

Continued...

On January 20^th, the United States Supreme Court ordered a federal court in Texas to reconsider the maps it had drawn for the state’s legislative districts. The Court unanimously held that the lower court may not have used “appropriate standards” in drawing the new maps. Instead, the lower court had “substituted its own concept of the collective public good for the Texas legislature’s determination of which policies serve the interests of the citizens of Texas.” The Court remanded the case to the district court to draw new maps, this time starting from the plan created by the state legislature last year. Please see this earlier coverage by the Rose Report for a more in-depth analysis on the background of the case.

Continued...

Attorneys representing Minnesota’s Republican and Democratic-Farmer-Labor (DFL) parties spoke before a special panel of the Minnesota Supreme Court on January 4 in a hearing concerning the placement of Minnesota’s new legislative boundaries.

While redistricting in Minnesota is usually determined by the legislature and the Governor, DFL governor Mark Dayton vetoed the plans passed by the Republican dominated House and Senate this past fall. The case has gone before a special panel for mediation.

Continued...