ReportWire

Tag: gerrymandering

  • Texas House Approves Redistricting Map Amid Fierce Democratic Opposition

    [ad_1]

    The Texas House on Wednesday approved a new redistricting map designed to pick up five additional GOP Congressional seats over vocal opposition and last-minute stall tactics from the minority Democratic party, representing a significant hurdle before Gov. Greg Abbott signs it into law.

    The measure passed 88-52. Texas Democrats say the effort is unnecessary, illegal, and racist. After a two-week quorum break where more than 50 lawmakers fled the state to avoid voting on the redistricting bill, they returned to the Capitol on Monday, prepared to vote against the map and vowing to challenge it in court.

    Rep. Todd Hunter, R-Corpus Christi, who authored House Bill 4, said the districts were drawn “primarily on the basis of political performance.”

    “This plan includes political considerations, public testimony, recognition of population growth, and recent changes in voter trends,” Hunter said. “Thirty-seven of the 38 congressional districts have changed to some degree. The primary changes are focused on only five districts for partisan purposes.”

    “Four of the five new districts are majority-minority Hispanic,” he added. “Each of these newly-drawn districts now trend Republican in political performance. While there’s no guarantee in electorate success, Republicans will now have an opportunity to potentially win these districts.”

    click to enlarge

    The Texas House of Representatives approved new congressional districts on Wednesday, with Democrats vowing to challenge the map in court.

    Texas Legislative Council

    More than two dozen Democrats spoke against the map during a lengthy floor debate that began at 10 a.m. and ended around 5:30 p.m., saying they wanted to establish a record that could be used in a legal challenge. Some encouraged their Republican colleagues to save their emails and text messages because the courts would be coming for them.

    “We should have been debating a bill to restore flood relief to many Texans who lost their lives in the Kerr County historic flooding, but instead the first bill that we’re taking up is a racially gerrymandered House Bill 4, mid-decade redistricting that is totally unnecessary,” said Rep. Ron Reynolds, D-Missouri City.

    The legislator was one of many who alleged that the redistricting effort involves “packing and cracking,” or widening the GOP advantage by unconstitutionally compressing people of color into some districts while spreading them throughout others to reduce their ability to elect who they want to represent them.

    Congressional districts that were approved in 2021 based on new Census data, with population growth largely driven by Black and Hispanic voters, were hailed by those who voted for them, including Republicans, as “race blind.” The state’s current congressional districts are currently being challenged in federal court.

    “I challenge you, when you look in the mirror, where were you?” Reynolds said. “Were you on the right side of history, in favor of voting rights for all, or were you on the wrong side of history, upholding discrimination with this racially gerrymandered map?”

    click to enlarge

    Rep. Ann Johnson, D-Houston, accused Republicans pushing the redistricting effort of racism.

    Screenshot

    Rep. Ann Johnson, D-Houston, said the effort is clearly racist.

    “Let’s talk about cowardice and cheats,” she said. “If you knew you could win this next election, you wouldn’t be taking this effort to try to steal five seats from elected officials that people of color elected to represent them in Washington, D.C. You shield your racism with your party. You think that people will give you grace on ignorance and arrogance around the party because you can’t admit that the root of all of this is about racism and power.”

    The Texas Legislature’s second special session began on August 15 after the conclusion of a 25-day first session in which very little was accomplished because of the quorum break. At least 69 bills were read into the record and referred to committees when the Democrats returned earlier this week, most dealing with emergency management and disaster response related to the July 4 Hill Country floods.

    And yet the only item before the House for a vote on Wednesday was redistricting, a point made by many who oppose it.

    The second special session has had its share of theatrics. Those who fled the state were assigned DPS surveillance officers to monitor their movement and ensure they returned to the Capitol for floor sessions such as the one held Wednesday. Rep. Nicole Collier, D-Fort Worth, declined to sign a permission slip and spent two nights locked in the Texas House.

    click to enlarge

    Rep. Nicole Collier, D-Fort Worth, questions HB 4 author Todd Hunter, R-Corpus Christi, on Wednesday.

    Screenshot

    Collier, a seven-term state representative and attorney, was later joined by other Democrats who ripped up their permission slips as a sign of solidarity. The state rep filed a petition earlier this week alleging that restraining her in the House is illegal. Republican lawmakers have criticized Collier’s actions as a “sit-in protest” and publicity stunt that had no effect on the outcome of redistricting maps.

    Several Democratic lawmakers wore green on Wednesday in support of Collier, who has been wearing a green blazer since she got locked in the House on Monday morning.

    The Texas Legislature’s redistricting fight has drawn national attention and prompted California Gov. Gavin Newsom to propose new maps in his state that would add Democratic seats, countering the effort in Texas to preserve President Donald Trump’s narrow GOP majority in the U.S. Congress.

    Several amendments were introduced on Wednesday in attempts to establish an independent redistricting commission, get a federal court opinion on the legality of the map, and ensure that the new Congressional districts would not become effective until after the May 2026 elections.

    Rep. Gene Wu, D-Houston, chair of the Democratic Caucus, asked to delay the vote until the Epstein files were released. He was denied and told that his amendment was “not even remotely related” to congressional redistricting.

    Democrats also attempted to table redistricting altogether and instead discuss flood bills. They brought up the matter of disaster response by making “parliamentary inquiries” so their statements would be included in the record.

    “Why was House Bill 1, the flood relief bill that is the House’s answer to the deadly July 4 flooding that killed over 135 people, not the first order of business of this special session for the Texas House?” asked Rep. Gina Hinojosa, R-Austin. Speaker of the House Dustin Burrows declined to answer, saying that it wasn’t a proper parliamentary inquiry.

    Rep. Jon Rosenthal, D-Houston, said an unfair process was employed to “ram this gerrymandered piece of work down the throats of the people of our state.”

    “The whole process for this has been a sham from the beginning,” he said. “Any member in here, any leader in this state, who tries to tell you that there were public hearings on this map, that is simply a lie. That is not true.”

    “What we have before us today is a committee substitute that was voted out in a formal meeting. They did not hold hearings on this bill. They did not hold hearings on this map.”

    click to enlarge

    Rep. Gene Wu, D-Houston, urged Democrats and officials from other states to stay vigilant in the redistricting fight.

    Screenshot

    Wu urged Texas Democrats and officials in other states to remain vigilant.

    “My fellow Americans, if you want to take your country back, if you want to go back to a nation where education actually provided a pathway to success, where hard work and following the rules actually meant something, where just because you were rich and powerful does not mean you get to evade justice, then start fighting,” he said. “Start here.”

    “Texas will have to go to the courts, but California, New York, Illinois, Michigan, and many other states, look at what’s happening here,” he added. “Look carefully. This is the future, right here, if you do not act now.”

    [ad_2]

    April Towery

    Source link

  • Obama applauds Newsom’s California redistricting plan as ‘responsible’ as Texas GOP pushes new maps

    [ad_1]

    Former President Barack Obama has waded into states’ efforts at rare mid-decade redistricting efforts, saying he agrees with California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s response to alter his state’s congressional maps, in the wake of Texas redistricting efforts promoted by President Donald Trump aimed at shoring up Republicans’ position in next year’s elections. “I believe that Gov. Newsom’s approach is a responsible approach. He said this is going to be responsible. We’re not going to try to completely maximize it,” Obama said at a Tuesday fundraiser on Martha’s Vineyard in Massachusetts, according to excerpts obtained by The Associated Press. “We’re only going to do it if and when Texas and/or other Republican states begin to pull these maneuvers. Otherwise, this doesn’t go into effect.”While noting that “political gerrymandering” is not his “preference,” Obama said that, if Democrats “don’t respond effectively, then this White House and Republican-controlled state governments all across the country, they will not stop, because they do not appear to believe in this idea of an inclusive, expansive democracy.”According to organizers, the event raised $2 million for the National Democratic Redistricting Committee and its affiliates, one of which has filed and supported litigation in several states over GOP-drawn districts. Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Eric Holder, who served as Obama’s attorney general and heads up the group, also appeared.The former president’s comments come as Texas lawmakers return to Austin this week, renewing a heated debate over a new congressional map creating five new potential GOP seats. The plan is the result of prodding by President Donald Trump, eager to stave off a midterm defeat that would deprive his party of control of the House of Representatives. Texas Democratic lawmakers delayed a vote for 15 days by leaving the state in protest, depriving the House of enough members to do business.Spurred on by the Texas situation, Democratic governors, including Newsom, have pondered ways to possibly strengthen their party’s position by way of redrawing U.S. House district lines, five years out from the Census count that typically leads into such procedures.In California — where voters in 2010 gave the power to draw congressional maps to an independent commission, with the goal of making the process less partisan — Democrats have unveiled a proposal that could give that state’s dominant political party an additional five U.S. House seats in a bid to win the fight for control of Congress next year. If approved by voters in November, the blueprint could nearly erase Republican House members in the nation’s most populous state, with Democrats intending to win the party 48 of its 52 U.S. House seats, up from 43.A hearing over that measure devolved into a shouting match Tuesday as a Republican lawmaker clashed with Democrats, and a committee voted along party lines to advance the new congressional map. California Democrats do not need any Republican votes to move ahead, and legislators are expected to approve a proposed congressional map and declare a Nov. 4 special election by Thursday to get required voter approval.Newsom and Democratic leaders say they’ll ask voters to approve their new maps only for the next few elections, returning map-drawing power to the commission following the 2030 census — and only if a Republican state moves forward with new maps. Obama applauded that temporary timeline.”And we’re going to do it in a temporary basis because we’re keeping our eye on where we want to be long term,” Obama said, referencing Newsom’s take on the California plan. “I think that approach is a smart, measured approach, designed to address a very particular problem in a very particular moment in time.”___Kinnard can be reached at http://x.com/MegKinnardAPSee more coverage of top California stories here | Download our app | Subscribe to our morning newsletter | Find us on YouTube here and subscribe to our channel

    Former President Barack Obama has waded into states’ efforts at rare mid-decade redistricting efforts, saying he agrees with California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s response to alter his state’s congressional maps, in the wake of Texas redistricting efforts promoted by President Donald Trump aimed at shoring up Republicans’ position in next year’s elections.

    “I believe that Gov. Newsom’s approach is a responsible approach. He said this is going to be responsible. We’re not going to try to completely maximize it,” Obama said at a Tuesday fundraiser on Martha’s Vineyard in Massachusetts, according to excerpts obtained by The Associated Press. “We’re only going to do it if and when Texas and/or other Republican states begin to pull these maneuvers. Otherwise, this doesn’t go into effect.”

    While noting that “political gerrymandering” is not his “preference,” Obama said that, if Democrats “don’t respond effectively, then this White House and Republican-controlled state governments all across the country, they will not stop, because they do not appear to believe in this idea of an inclusive, expansive democracy.”

    This content is imported from Twitter.
    You may be able to find the same content in another format, or you may be able to find more information, at their web site.

    According to organizers, the event raised $2 million for the National Democratic Redistricting Committee and its affiliates, one of which has filed and supported litigation in several states over GOP-drawn districts. Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Eric Holder, who served as Obama’s attorney general and heads up the group, also appeared.

    The former president’s comments come as Texas lawmakers return to Austin this week, renewing a heated debate over a new congressional map creating five new potential GOP seats. The plan is the result of prodding by President Donald Trump, eager to stave off a midterm defeat that would deprive his party of control of the House of Representatives. Texas Democratic lawmakers delayed a vote for 15 days by leaving the state in protest, depriving the House of enough members to do business.

    Spurred on by the Texas situation, Democratic governors, including Newsom, have pondered ways to possibly strengthen their party’s position by way of redrawing U.S. House district lines, five years out from the Census count that typically leads into such procedures.

    In California — where voters in 2010 gave the power to draw congressional maps to an independent commission, with the goal of making the process less partisan — Democrats have unveiled a proposal that could give that state’s dominant political party an additional five U.S. House seats in a bid to win the fight for control of Congress next year. If approved by voters in November, the blueprint could nearly erase Republican House members in the nation’s most populous state, with Democrats intending to win the party 48 of its 52 U.S. House seats, up from 43.

    A hearing over that measure devolved into a shouting match Tuesday as a Republican lawmaker clashed with Democrats, and a committee voted along party lines to advance the new congressional map. California Democrats do not need any Republican votes to move ahead, and legislators are expected to approve a proposed congressional map and declare a Nov. 4 special election by Thursday to get required voter approval.

    Newsom and Democratic leaders say they’ll ask voters to approve their new maps only for the next few elections, returning map-drawing power to the commission following the 2030 census — and only if a Republican state moves forward with new maps. Obama applauded that temporary timeline.

    “And we’re going to do it in a temporary basis because we’re keeping our eye on where we want to be long term,” Obama said, referencing Newsom’s take on the California plan. “I think that approach is a smart, measured approach, designed to address a very particular problem in a very particular moment in time.”

    ___

    Kinnard can be reached at http://x.com/MegKinnardAP

    See more coverage of top California stories here | Download our app | Subscribe to our morning newsletter | Find us on YouTube here and subscribe to our channel

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Fact vs. Fiction: Did Texas Rep. Nicole Collier Sleep in the House Chamber After Refusing GOP ‘Permission Slip’?

    [ad_1]


    Claim via Social Media

    In August 2025, Rep. Nicole Collier (D–Fort Worth) was forced to sleep overnight in the Texas House chamber after Republicans required Democrats to sign “permission slips” and accept police escorts to leave the building, conditions she refused.

    Explanation

    This claim is accurate. Following their return from a walkout protesting mid-decade redistricting, Texas Democrats faced new GOP-imposed restrictions. As reported by The Texas Tribune, CBS Texas, and NBC News, Republicans required returning Democrats to obtain written permission and be under constant police watch to prevent another quorum break.

    Rep. Collier rejected these terms and opted to remain inside the House overnight rather than surrender her autonomy. On X (formerly Twitter), she shared an image of herself sleeping inside the chamber and stated, “I refuse to sign away my dignity as a duly elected representative.”

    The confrontation stems from Texas Republicans’ decision to redraw congressional maps mid-decade at the urging of President Trump, an unusual move without court orders, as explained by the Congressional Research Service. Analysts projected the new maps could net the GOP five additional U.S. House seats.

    To block the vote, Democrats temporarily fled the state, denying the quorum needed for passage. Upon their return, Speaker Dustin Burrows imposed movement restrictions, leading to Collier’s stand.

    Conclusion

    Fact or Fiction? Fact. Texas Rep. Nicole Collier did sleep inside the House chamber after refusing GOP-imposed conditions. Her protest was a direct response to rules designed to prevent further quorum breaks during a controversial redistricting session.

    Read More


    Do you appreciate our work? Please consider one of the following ways to sustain us.

    MBFC Ad-Free 

    or

    MBFC Donation


     

    Subscribe With Email

    Join 24.5K other subscribers

    [ad_2]

    Media Bias Fact Check

    Source link

  • Arnold Schwarzenegger Is Ready To Take On Gavin Newsom

    [ad_1]

    In these divided times, Californians of both stripes have been comforted by how readily its most recent Republican governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and current Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom have come together—especially when it came to standing up to (Republican, as if you didn’t know) President Donald Trump. But that Golden State alliance ended this week, after Newsom announced a plan to redistrict California in response to a Trump-inspired gerrymandering scheme in Texas.

    For months now, Trump’s team has been lobbying GOP lawmakers and governors to redraw state maps to ensure a Republican House majority in the 2026 midterm elections. In Indiana, for example, Trump asked Gov. Mike Braun to call for a special legislative session to redistrict the Hoosier state, even sending Vice President JD Vance to implore leaders to convene.

    Braun—who Trump relegated to the kids’ table during his star-studded inauguration—has yet to make a decision on the matter, but his counterpart in Texas, Greg Abbott, is all in on the plan, with a special redistricting session planned for this week that could net the GOP five more House seats.

    ICE agents march to LA’s Edward R. Roybal Federal Building after a show of force outside Gov. Gavin Newsom’s Thursday, Aug 14 press conference in support of a special election to redistrict California.

    Carlin Stiehl/Getty Images

    In response, Newsom announced his own redistricting proposal Thursday, saying via X that he will call a special election “to redraw our Congressional maps and defend fair representation.” At a press conference on Thursday to promote the November 4 vote, Newsom explained that redrawing California’s electoral map would generate five Democratic house seats, effectively negating any Texas gains. It’s a move that the state must make “in reaction to a president of the United States that called a sitting governor of the state of Texas and said ‘find me five seats,’” Newsom said.

    “I know they say don’t mess with Texas. Well, don’t mess with the great Golden State,” Newsom said, even as Trump appeared to do just that: Armed and masked ICE agents assembled just outside Newsom’s press event to promote the redistricting effort, a show of force that LA Mayor Karen Bass described as “completely unacceptable” and Newsom pointed to as proof that California’s redistricting is the only way forward. The ICE agents’ presence was “pretty sick and pathetic,” Newsom told reporters, describing it as everything one needs to know “about Donald Trump’s America.”

    That scene must have sent chills down the spine of Newsom’s fellow Californian, Arnold Schwarzenegger. The Terminator star, who had Newsom’s current job from November 17, 2003, to January 3, 2011, was born shortly after World War II to a member of the Nazi party—a group that, under Trump, has experienced a significant revival. “My father was, and so many other millions of men were, sucked into a hate system through lies and deceit. And so, we have seen where that leads,” Schwarzenegger said in a 2023 interview.

    Image may contain Arnold Schwarzenegger George Pataki Gavin Newsom Sandra Mihanovich Clothing Footwear and Shoe

    THE WAY WE WERE: Then-California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and then-San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom joke around at Schwarzenegger’s ceremony to sign the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 to reduce greenhouse emissions. Though the GOP has threatened to roll back the many of the protections promised in that act, Schwarzenegger remains a member of the Republican party.

    David Paul Morris/Getty Images

    [ad_2]

    Eve Batey

    Source link

  • Commentary: Newsom vows Texas will be ‘neutered’ by California. Will voters let him do it?

    [ad_1]

    Gov. Gavin Newsom made a ballsy threat this week to Texas legislators who are trying to gerrymander voting maps in favor of Republicans.

    “Whatever they are doing will be neutered here in the state of California, and they will pay that price,” Newsom said. “They’ve triggered this response. And we’re not going to roll over, and we’re going to fight fire with fire.”

    The “we” in that sentence is you, California voters, who may soon be asked to fix the Texas menace via the ballot box. If Newsom has his way, voters in November would face some version of an if/then question: “If Texas cheats on their voting maps, then (and only then) should California cheat on ours?”

    In these days of creeping authoritarianism, it’s a fair query, but also one rife with personal interests and risks large enough to remake American democracy, or even inadvertently crush it.

    But such is the state of our union that even those determined to preserve it are ready to throw out its basic tenets — myself included, sort of — and cause a national kerfuffle by considering remaking voting maps to supposedly benefit, if not a party, democracy as a whole.

    “This is something that we have just never seen before, right?” Mindy Romero told me Tuesday. She’s an assistant professor and the founder of the Center for Inclusive Democracy at USC’s Sol Price School of Public Policy.

    Romero is against gerrymandering, but also agrees that we are in “unprecedented times,” a phrase that doesn’t seem to do justice to the daily trampling of democratic safeguards by our president.

    Most of you are aware by now that the Texas Legislature, allegedly after pressure from President Trump, is contemplating redrawing its voting maps in the hopes of scooping up more seats for Republicans in Congress during the 2026 midterms — the very election that Democrats are praying will deliver them control of at least one chamber.

    With the possibility that this Texas two-step could hand Trump an even more solidly compliant Congress, Newsom has come up with a plan to gerrymander our own maps. But to make it (hopefully) legal, he needs voters to go along with it because this ain’t Texas, and we don’t ignore rules. We bend them.

    Whoever thought redistricting could be this exciting? But stay calm, redistricting nerds: It remains boring to the majority of voters, which is both the problem and the brilliance of the plan — you have to engage voters, but also not so much that they think too deeply.

    The difference between Texas and California is our ballot initiative process, which would ultimately make voters responsible for any gerrymandering here. In Texas, it’s backroom stuff.

    But will voters go for it? For many, it will come down to simple choices that miss the complexity of what is being asked: California vs. Texas, Newsom vs. Trump, democracy vs. authoritarianism.

    Romero warns that once you smash a norm, even for a virtuous reason, it’s hard to get it back. She worries that despite Newsom’s claim that the rigged maps would disappear in 2030, the gerrymandering might remain.

    California has one of the best systems in the country right now for nonpartisan redistricting, with an independent commission that draws lines without regard to party.

    It was put in place because decades of gerrymandering left voters disenchanted.

    In the 1980s, political icon Phillip Burton allegedly wrangled an infamous gerrymander that still shows just how bad things could be. He did it in part to protect the seat of his brother, John Burton ( a colorful fellow who served in both the state Legislature and Congress before becoming chair of the California Democratic Party) creating a district that wound around the Bay Area in a nonsensical fashion to scrape up the necessary votes.

    “Oh, it’s gorgeous,” Phillip Burton described that questionable territory to the Washington Post at the time. “It curls in and out like a snake.”

    That was just the way business was done before our redistricting commission was put in place in 2008, with a hefty push by then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who remains a vocal critic of gerrymandering and who has vowed to fight Newsom’s plan.

    But that nonpartisan system was hard won, and in reality, neither party really loved the idea.

    “We’ve gone through this and in cooler times,” Romero pointed out. “The Democrats and the Republicans in California did not want independent redistricting. Let’s make that clear. But a lot of people came together and worked towards this.”

    So while any upcoming ballot measure will likely focus on the righteousness of fighting fire with fire, it’s also true that the Democratic party and some Democratic politicians would hope to reap personal gain from such a vote.

    As much as this might be about saving democracy, politics is always about personal and party gain. Some California state legislators would surely desire to win a newly drawn seat in Congress. And, of course, there are Newsom’s political ambitions.

    “It’s really difficult to disentangle people that may be sincerely scared for our democracy” from those “that may be jumping on this, seeing it as a political opportunity. And I think we have to be really honest about that,” Romero said.

    That’s the choice that voters will ultimately be asked to make.

    But we also can’t ignore the precarious nature of the times, and the reality that our checks and balances are disintegrating. Do we save election integrity and maybe risk democracy, or try to save democracy and risk election integrity?

    Two paths lead into the dark. Do voters follow Newsom or Trump?

    [ad_2]

    Anita Chabria

    Source link

  • Wisconsin Supreme Court Orders New Legislative Maps In Redistricting Case

    Wisconsin Supreme Court Orders New Legislative Maps In Redistricting Case

    [ad_1]

    In an ideologically split 4-3 decision, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled Friday that the state’s electoral maps, which were gerrymandered over a decade ago to favor Republicans, were unconstitutional, setting up a redrawing of the maps in advance of the 2024 election in the crucial presidential swing state.

    The court’s majority said that over half of the state assembly’s 99 districts, and at least 20 of its 33 Senate districts, violated the state’s constitutional requirement for districts to be made of “contiguous territory.”

    “Given the language in the Constitution, the question before us is straightforward,” wrote Justice Jill J. Karofsky in the majority decision. “When legislative districts are composed of separate, detached parts, do they consist of ‘contiguous territory’? We conclude that they do not.”

    The GOP-favored maps, first drawn in 2011 when Scott Walker took over the state’s governorship and reinforced in 2022 when conservatives controlled the state’s highest court, have given the Republican Party a stranglehold in the Wisconsin legislature.

    The GOP holds a 64-35 majority in the state assembly and a 22-11 majority in the state senate, even as the state’s electorate remained deeply split in recent presidential elections. In 2020, the state broke for Joe Biden by just over 20,000 votes.

    The decision was praised by Wisconsin’s Democratic governor, Tony Evers. “Wisconsin is a purple state, and I look forward to submitting maps to the Court to consider and review that reflect and represent the makeup of our state,” Evers said in a statement. “And I remain as optimistic as ever that, at long last, the gerrymandered maps Wisconsinites have endured for years might soon be history.”

    Robin Vos, a Republican and the Speaker of the Wisconsin Assembly, argued that “the case was pre-decided before it was even brought.” Vos added: “[It’s a] sad day for our state when the State Supreme Court just said last year that the existing lines are constitutional. The U.S. Supreme Court will have the last word.”

    Lawmakers must draw up new maps by mid-March 2024, but with time running out, the court’s majority said if the two parties fail to agree, the court would step in and create constitutional maps that would not advantage either Republicans or Democrats.

    The decision reflects the momentous right-to-left swing the court has undergone in the last year. In April, current liberal Justice Janet Protasiewicz beat a far-right candidate in the most expensive court election in U.S. history, shifting the court from conservative to liberal control. 

    During her campaign, Protasiewicz had described the state’s electoral maps as “unfair” and “rigged,” leading some GOP officials, led by Vos, to call for her impeachment if she ruled in favor of redrawing the districts.

    Protasiewicz did rule for the majority, but Vos had already appeared to back off on Wednesday. “[Impeachment is] one of the tools that we have in our toolbox that we could use at any time,” he said in an interview. “Is it going to be used? I think it’s super unlikely.”

    [ad_2]

    Jack McCordick

    Source link

  • Video: The Latest Challenge to the Voting Rights Act

    Video: The Latest Challenge to the Voting Rights Act

    [ad_1]

    OPEN: A court recent ruling recently could deliver a death blow to the Voting Rights Act – a law that has protected Black Americans’ political power the voting rights of minority communities for six decades./////A federal appeals court issued a ruling last month on an Arkansas redistricting case that could drastically weaken the Voting Rights Act, a law that has protected minority communities’ political power for almost six decades. ALT: A recent court ruling could make it harder for people to challenge state’s racially discriminatory voting practices. ALT : The Voting Rights Act has been the single most …. but a recent court ruling could ALT: As voting rights have become a flash issue, a recent court ruling in Arkansas could….. The ruling by the 8th Circuit appeals court, which is almost certain to be appealed to the Supreme Court, would effectively bar private citizens and civil rights groups from suing under section 2 of the law. To understand that, we need to take a quick look back at the law itself… Background on the Voting Rights Act The Voting Rights Act was signed into law in 1965, and was one of the most significant achievements of the civil rights movement. The law rolled back discriminatory Jim Crow laws that were meant to disenfranchise minority communities. Since then, it has evolved, and it’s been under attack almost since it was passed. Why Section 2 is so important This latest ruling affects Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which allows private citizens (and civil rights groups) to fight racially discriminatory voting practices by states. Over the years, dozens of lawsuits have used Section 2 to challenge heavily gerrymandered redistricting maps. But in 2021, when voters in Pulaski County, Arkansas challenged a redistricting that diluted the voting power of Black voters Judge Rudofsky, a Trump-appointed federal judge, ruled that “only the attorney general of the United States may bring suit” to enforce Section 2. That decision, which has since been upheld by the 8th Circuit Court, takes the power to file lawsuits to enforce the Voting Rights Act away from individual voters. Legal experts and commentators say this is a very unusual interpretation of the Voting Rights Act. In his dissent, Chief Circuit Judge Lavenski Smith noted that at least 182 successful Section 2 cases have been brought in the past 40 years, only 15 of which were brought solely by the US Justice Department./// Over the past 40 years, more than 90 percent of successful Section 2 cases were brought by individuals or civil rights organizations///Over the past four decades, fewer than 10 percent of successful section 2 cases were brought by the US DOJ The Arkansas ruling is almost certain to be appealed to the Supreme Court. [Several legal experts I spoke with said tktktkt] But for now, it only affects/applies to states in the 8th Circuit’s jurisdiction — Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota. Could it impact any of these states in a way with national resonance? Whether or not the Supreme Court upholds this Eighth Circuit ruling, we’re almost certain to see other challenges to voting rights in the coming months.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Alabama Republicans Refuse to Create New Majority-Black District: “The Quintessential Definition of Noncompliance”

    Alabama Republicans Refuse to Create New Majority-Black District: “The Quintessential Definition of Noncompliance”

    [ad_1]

    Alabama Republicans passed a redrawn congressional map that appears to spurn a court-ordered mandate to create two majority-Black districts in the state “or something quite close to it.” The new map was quickly signed by Republican Governor Kay Ivey on Friday, who said the GOP-dominated legislature “knows our state, our people, and our districts better than the federal courts or activist groups.”

    The maps were approved just hours before the court-mandated deadline, which reduces the percentage of Black voters in Alabama’s sole majority-Black district, currently represented by Democratic Congresswoman Terri Sewell, from 55% to 51%. Conversely, it would boost the percentage of Black voters in one of the state’s six majority-white districts from about 30% to about 40%.

    “This is the quintessential definition of noncompliance,” State Representative Chris England, a Democrat who represents Tuscaloosa, said after the vote. 

    The redistricting map comes a month after the Supreme Court issued a 5-4 ruling on behalf of a group of Alabama voters who argued that the state’s congressional map violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

    Chief Justice John Roberts and Brett Kavanaugh sided with the liberals in the case, a major surprise after a decade in which the court’s conservative majority issued ruling after ruling watering down that law. The plaintiff in Shelby County v. Holder, the court’s landmark 2013 decision that deemed a different part of the Voting Rights Act unconstitutional, was a county in Alabama.

    But Alabama Republicans defended the redrawn lines as being in compliance with the court mandate. “I believe this map is an opportunity map and would comply with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act,” state House Speaker Pro Tempore Chris Pringle, who chaired the committee charged with redistricting, said Friday.

    “Once again, the state supermajority decided that the voting rights of Black people are nothing that this state is bound to respect, and it’s offensive, it’s wrong,” State Representative Prince Chestnut said Wednesday after the House voted on its version of the maps. The process, he said, “shows Alabama still has the same recalcitrant and obstreperous mindset that it had 100 years ago.”

    Speaking to reporters Friday, England said he thinks “the federal court is going to do what they’ve done for Alabama for decades and hopefully save us from ourselves and put us in compliance with their order to create a fair opportunity for African Americans.”

    The federal court that originally ordered the state’s maps to be redrawn will hold a hearing in mid-August and could decide to appoint a special master to oversee the process.

    How this plays out could have major implications for next year’s elections, with Republicans currently holding one of the smallest House majorities in U.S. history. And it’s not just in Alabama.

    Several weeks after the Supreme Court ruled on behalf of Alabama voters, it also lifted a stay on a federal court order in Louisiana that similarly ordered the state’s legislature to redraw voting maps. In both states, redrawn maps could give Democratic-leaning Black voters a better chance to elect representatives in 2024 and could impact the composition of the tightly-divided House.

    A Republican state senator told The New York Times that he’d spoken with Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) on Friday, and that the House Speaker told him, “I’m interested in keeping my majority.”

    [ad_2]

    Jack McCordick

    Source link

  • N. Carolina Justices Hand GOP Big Wins With Election Rulings

    N. Carolina Justices Hand GOP Big Wins With Election Rulings

    [ad_1]

    RALEIGH, N.C. (AP) — In massive victories for Republicans, the newly GOP-controlled North Carolina Supreme Court on Friday threw out a previous ruling against gerrymandered voting maps and upheld a photo voter identification law that colleagues had struck down as racially biased.

    The partisan gerrymandering ruling should make it significantly easier for the Republican-dominated legislature to help the GOP gain seats in the narrowly divided U.S. House when state lawmakers redraw congressional boundaries for the 2024 elections. Under the current map, Democrats won seven of the state’s 14 congressional seats last November.

    The court, which became a Republican majority this year following the election of two GOP justices, ruled after taking the unusual step of revisiting redistricting and voter ID opinions made in December by the court’s previous iteration, when Democrats held a 4-3 seat advantage. The court held rehearings in March.

    Friday’s 5-2 rulings also mean that state lawmakers should have greater latitude in drawing General Assembly seat boundaries for elections next year and the rest of the decade, and that the voter ID law approved by the legislature in late 2018 could be carried out soon.

    In another court decision Friday along party lines, the state justices overturned a trial court decision on when the voting rights of people convicted of felonies are restored. That means tens of thousands of people will have to complete their probation or parole and pay any fines to qualify to vote again.

    Republican legislators celebrated the sweeping series of favorable decisions that are assuredly the result of the changing makeup of the state’s highest court. Outside groups spent millions on the two Supreme Court campaigns in 2022.

    “The decisions handed down today by the NC Supreme Court have ensured that our constitution and the will of the people of North Carolina are honored,” House Speaker Tim Moore said in a news release.

    But the remaining Democratic justices and their allies lambasted the decisions that reversed new precedents on redistricting and voter ID.

    Former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, who leads a national Democratic group whose affiliate helped support the redistricting litigation, said Friday’s mapping decision was “a function of political personnel and partisan opportunism” by Republicans.

    “History will not be kind to this court’s majority, which will now forever be stained for irreparably harming the legitimacy and reputation of North Carolina’s highest tribunal,” Holder said.

    Chief Justice Paul Newby, writing the majority opinion in the redistricting case, said that the previous Democratic majority erred by declaring that the state constitution outlawed extensive partisan gerrymandering. The court last year struck down maps the General Assembly drew because they said it gave Republicans outsized electoral advantage compared to their voting power.

    But Newby said a partisan gerrymandering prohibition is absent from the plain language of the constitution. He argued that current and former colleagues who declared otherwise had wrongly wrested power away from the General Assembly, which the state constitution designates as the mapmakers.

    “In its decision today, the Court returns to its tradition of honoring the constitutional roles assigned to each branch,” Newby wrote. “This case is not about partisan politics, but rather about realigning the proper roles of the judicial and legislative branches.”

    Associate Justice Anita Earls, writing the dissenting opinion, said the court correctly ruled last year to ensure all North Carolina residents “regardless of political party, were not denied their ‘fundamental right to vote on equal terms.’ … Today, the majority strips the people of this right.”

    North Carolina Republicans also had appealed a decision on the congressional map to the U.S. Supreme Court, asking the justices to expand the powers of state legislatures at the expense of state courts on matters of congressional redistricting and elections.

    The U.S. justices heard oral arguments in December but later asked the legal parties what effect, in any, the state Supreme Court’s reconsideration of the issue should have on the case. The responses varied, but President Joe Biden’s administration suggested the court should dismiss the case, even before Friday’s state court decision.

    On voter ID, the Republican majority reversed a trial court decision that struck down the 2018 law. The trial court had ruled that GOP legislators passed the law in part to retain General Assembly control by discouraging Black Democrats from voting in legislative elections. But Associate Justice Phil Berger Jr. wrote, in part, that the trial judges erred in relying on a federal court ruling striking down a 2013 voter ID law as tainted by racial discrimination.

    Although a federal lawsuit challenging the voter ID law is still pending, the State Board of Elections said Friday that staff would start working toward “a smooth rollout” of the ID requirement with municipal elections this fall.

    Voters also previously approved a separate photo voter ID mandate for the state constitution, although that amendment remains stuck in litigation that wouldn’t affect Friday’s ruling.

    On the process for restoring voting rights, the court upheld a law passed in 1973 — when Democrats controlled the legislature — that automatically restored voting rights only after the “unconditional discharge of an inmate, of a probationer, or of a parolee.”

    A panel of trial court judges last year declared that the law disproportionately harmed Black offenders and violated the constitution. The plaintiffs’ lawyers said the 1973 law remained rooted in Reconstruction-era efforts by white politicians to intentionally prevent Black residents from voting.

    Most of the people affected by the law — about 56,000 on probation, parole or supervision at the time of a 2021 trial — got the chance to vote last November.

    Shakita Norman, a plaintiff in the case who was able to vote in 2022, called Friday’s decision “just plain wrong. If you’re telling us we can no longer vote, are you also telling us that we don’t have to pay taxes? This isn’t right.”

    Associate Justice Trey Allen wrote in the majority opinion that the trial court “wrongly imputed” discriminatory views of 19th century lawmakers upon others who later “made it easier for eligible felons of all races to regain their voting rights.”

    “It is not unconstitutional to insist that felons pay their debt to society as a condition of participating in the electoral process,” Allen wrote.

    Associated Press writer Mark Sherman contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]

    Source link