Jeffries says NY redistricting process was ‘hijacked’ by appeals court https://thehill.com/news/sunday-tal...icting-process-was-hijacked-by-appeals-court/ excerpt: more at the link
How a Mapmaker Became New York’s Most Unexpected Power Broker Jonathan Cervas, a former bartender from Las Vegas, radically redrew New York’s House district lines, forcing some Democratic incumbents to scramble for new seats. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/28/nyregion/jonathan-cervas-redistricting-maps-ny.html
https://thehill.com/opinion/campaig...-vote-stealing-more-entrenched-now-than-ever/ Gerrymandering, a legal form of vote stealing, more entrenched now than ever BY GLENN C. ALTSCHULER, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR - 05/29/22 8:30 AM ET In June 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court overruled a unanimous U.S. District Court decision that partisan gerrymandering in North Carolina violated the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. Although Chief Justice John Roberts acknowledged that the practice leads to results that “reasonably seem unjust,” he maintained that partisan gerrymandering is a “political question,” beyond the reach of federal courts. Each state, Roberts indicated, should manage its own redistricting process. Four justices dissented. In an emotional statement, which she read from the bench, Elena Kagan warned, “Left unchecked as the court does today, gerrymanderers like these may irreparably damage our system of government.” The maps drawn to comply with the population count of the 2020 United States Census demonstrate that partisan gerrymandering — a legal form of vote stealing used by politicians who disregard the political composition of the electorate in their state to ensure they retain power for themselves and their party — is stronger and more resistant to reform than ever. Republicans, who control a substantial majority of state legislatures, benefit significantly from gerrymandering, netting many seats in local assemblies and senates and 13-18 more members of the House of Representatives. States with Republican legislatures and a Republican governor have doubled down on partisan gerrymandering. Ohio, which gave 53.3 percent of its votes to Donald Trump in 2020, is now represented in the House by 12 Republicans and 4 Democrats. Post-2020 census, the state lost one House seat. The redistricting map drawn by an electoral commission controlled by Republicans put the GOP in a position to hold 11 House seats, the Democrats 2, with two competitive races. After the state’s Supreme Court rejected the plan — twice — the commission has resubmitted it. And a U.S. District Court recently decided to allow the maps to be used in 2022 because the general election is only a few months away. Florida, which gave 51.2 percent of its votes to Donald Trump in 2020, is now represented in the House by 16 Republicans and 11 Democrats. Post-2020 census, the state has gained one House seat. The partisan redistricting plan passed by the Republican-dominated state legislature was not partisan enough for Gov. Ron DeSantis. He submitted his own map and pushed it through the legislature. This plan makes it likely that Republicans will win 18 House seats, the Democrats 8, with competitive races reduced from 5 to 2. DeSantis’s plan has been challenged in court, but it is almost certain to remain in effect. Wisconsin, which gave 48.8 percent of its votes to Donald Trump in 2020 and has a Republican legislative majority and a Democratic governor, has kept its Congressional map largely intact: 6 Republicans and 2 Democrats in the House of Representatives. Democrats have by no means been immune to gerrymandering. In the last few decades, however, they have been far more likely to confront a political version of the Prisoner’s Dilemma: Do the right thing, establish non-partisan or bi-partisan commissions to draw election district maps, and put a “kick-me” again sign on their backs — or try to maintain their slim majority in the House of Representatives by fighting fire with fire. New York provides a real-life example of a house divided against itself. In February 2022, after an electoral commission failed to reach a consensus on a redistricting map, the Democratic majority in the legislature provided a “master class” in gerrymandering, putting the party in a position to control 22 (a pickup of 3) of 26 seats in the House of Representatives. In a 4-3 decision, the state’s Court of Appeals, all of whose members were appointed by Democrats, struck down the maps because they were “drawn with an impermissible partisan purpose,” in violation of a 2014 amendment to the state constitution prohibiting gerrymandering. A new map, drawn by Jonathan Cervas, the court-appointed master, provides safe seats for 15 Democrats and 3 Republicans, and 8 swing seats. Now that the Supreme Court has declined to intervene, the prospects of slowing down or stopping partisan gerrymandering are vanishingly small, because self-interested legislatures must approve reforms of the practice. Because the stakes are too high to give up, reformers should learn to play a long game. To increase media coverage of and public interest in the evils of gerrymandering ahead of the midterm elections, the Freedom to Vote Act, which authorizes the Department of Justice, private citizens, and political parties to bring lawsuits challenging Congressional maps to the U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia, should be brought to the Senate floor again by Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), even though the bill will not pass as long as Republicans can filibuster it. Opponents of partisan gerrymandering should lobby to establish independent electoral commissions that are not subject to a veto by the legislature or governor. Indeed, Ohio, Missouri, Utah, Iowa, and Arizona as well as several blue states have taken this step, albeit with varying grants of authority. Reformers should also try to pass amendments to state constitutions defining and then banning extreme partisan gerrymandering. Although they do not always prevail, electoral commissions and constitutional amendments force gerrymanders to defend their maps to potentially skeptical judges. And putting these measures on the ballot can help remind Democratic, Republican, and independent voters that democracies cease to be democracies when the outcome of elections is predetermined. Glenn C. Altschuler is the Thomas and Dorothy Litwin Professor of American Studies at Cornell University. He is the co-author (with Stuart Blumin) of “Rude Republic: Americans and Their Politics in the Nineteenth Century.”
I just heard a very disturbing analysis. More than half of Wisconsin voters could vote for Democrats with Tony Evers reelected and Mandela Barnes winning but Republicans could still get a supermajority in the State Legislature.
The now republican majority North Carolina Supreme Court overturns its own rulings that now allow republican gerrymandering, voter ID requirements and and restoration of voting rights for felons. NC Supreme Court says it can't stop partisan gerrymandering https://www.wral.com/story/nc-supreme-court-says-it-can-t-stop-partisan-gerrymandering/20834008/
Totally is and this is reality if gerrymandering isn't prohibited nationwide. You can't unilaterally disarm if Republicans continue to gerrymander where they can. For reference, Republicans in North Carolina got a new Republican Supreme Court that is letting them do the exact same thing to their congressional map.
excerpt: What’s Next The Court of Appeals is now likely to once again have the final say. The seven-judge panel was skeptical of Democrats a year ago, and could view the current lawsuit as an attack on its earlier ruling. But Thursday’s ruling shifts the burden to Republicans to argue why the top court should reverse the new status quo. Importantly, the bench has also moved decidedly leftward since then, and is now led by a liberal chief judge, Rowan D. Wilson, who dissented from the 2022 decision. hard to believe
Second time's not the charm. Of course, it's because Republicans are against fair representations. Ohio AG Twice Rejects Ballot Language for Citizen-Led Redistricting Commission https://www.democracydocket.com/new...age-for-citizen-led-redistricting-commission/ On Thursday, Sept. 14, Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost (R) once again rejected ballot language for a proposed amendment to the Ohio Constitution that would create a citizen-led, independent redistricting commission in the state. In a letter, Yost — as he did when he rejected the first summary submitted — claimed the summary language describing the amendment was not a “fair and truthful representation of the proposed amendment.” This time, Yost specifically argued the summary failed to properly explain the amendment’s definition of political affiliation “as applied to Commission members versus Panel members.” By panel, Yost is referring to the initial group of individuals who screen potential members to serve on the redistricting commission. Citizens Not Politicians, the pro-voting group that submitted the summary, said in a statement that they were “disappointed and frustrated that the Attorney General has chosen to reject our petition summary for a second time,” and that they know their “summary language was accurate.” They vowed to collect new signatures in order to refile the language again. The proposed commission would consist entirely of citizens, and would be evenly split between Democrats, Republicans and independents. While Ohio already has a redistricting commission, as approved by voters in 2018, it consists only of partisan elected officials or individuals appointed by elected officials. As a result, Republicans control the current commission and have failed to produce fair maps. In fact, the existing commission is now beginning its sixth redraw of the state’s legislative maps after the previous maps were repeatedly struck down by the Ohio Supreme Court. Making matters worse, earlier this week the commission had to delay its first meeting in over a year because Republicans couldn’t agree on a co-chair. Ohio AG rejects anti-gerrymandering ballot effort that would create citizen redistricting commission https://ohiocapitaljournal.com/2023...ould-create-citizen-redistricting-commission/ The proposed constitutional amendment to prevent gerrymandering in Ohio has been rejected for being “confusing and vague” by Attorney General Dave Yost. This, however, is relatively common for first-time submissions. Coalition Citizens Not Politicians has put forward a constitutional amendment for the November 2024 ballot. The proposal creates the 15-member Ohio Citizens Redistricting Commission (OCRC) made up of Republican, Democratic and independent citizens who broadly represent the different geographic areas and demographics of the state. Read the full amendment here. Rejection Yost’s job is to determine whether a submitted summary is a “fair and truthful” representation of the amendment. “We identified omissions and misstatements that, as a whole, would mislead a potential signer as to the actual scope and effect of the proposed amendment,” Yost wrote in a letter to the petitioners. It wasn’t about the content of the amendment, but rather the slight differences from the summary language to the official petition language. A summary, historically, is more condensed than the writing that proceeds. “The summary provides near-recitations of some sections of the proposed amendment while giving short shrift to other sections,” Yost wrote. An example of this is shown when the AG quotes the summary’s statement that a bipartisan screening panel must get a search firm to help with candidate review. Here is the explicit difference: Summary: “Require the Panel to retain the services of a professional search firm to assist with the application and application review processes.” Language: “The bipartisan screening panel shall engage a professional search firm to solicit applications for commissioner, screen and provide information about applicants, check references, and otherwise facilitate the application review and applicant interview process.” Problem This is a problem because the summary “diminishes the actual role of the search firm,” Yost said. The nine outlined problems are “just a few examples of the summary’s omissions and misstatements,” he said. Yost’s letter of rejection does specify what other omissions or misstatements are in the summary. Read Attorney General Yost’s full letter here. Response “It is not at all uncommon for the Attorney General to reject the summary of a petition in this first early stage of bringing a constitutional amendment,” said Citizens Not Politicians Spokesperson Chris Davey. “We believe our summary was accurate. But we will review the Attorney General’s guidance, will make necessary adjustments, and will collect new signatures with our broad, statewide, nonpartisan coalition of partners to refile as soon as possible because it’s time for citizens and not politicians to draw Ohio’s legislative maps.” The advocates can resubmit as many times as they want. This article was originally published on News5Cleveland.com and is published in the Ohio Capital Journal under a content-sharing agreement. Unlike other OCJ articles, it is not available for free republication by other news outlets as it is owned by WEWS in Cleveland.
