1 of 30

2 of 30

  • Latest developments
  • Four Independent Redistricting Commissions that work
  • A deeper dive on the Independent State Legislature theory (Dan Vicuña, Common Cause)
  • What’s next
  • Volunteer appreciation picnic September 18

Agenda

3 of 30

  • What will still happen this year?
  • What will or could happen next year?
  • When will map-making begin again?

Where are we now in the redistricting process?

4 of 30

2/24 “3rd set” GA Maps: 27 Toss Up Seats

Dem Seats: 26 GOP Seats: 54 Toss-ups (<52%): 19

Dem Seats: 7 GOP Seats: 18 Toss-ups (<52%): 8

5 of 30

Ohio’s Congressional Map: 4 Toss Up Seats

D Seats: 2; R Seats: 9

Toss-ups: 4 (3 Dem)

  • Passed 3/2/22
  • Struck down by the Ohio Supreme Court on 7/19/22
  • On the ballot November 8 anyway.

6 of 30

Our continued advocacy around maps

Advocacy around the current maps

  • Why turn out is important
  • Questions to ask candidates

Advocacy around the next set of maps/the process

  • July Huddle: Prof Niven’s discussion of one street (slides and a recording)
  • Look for these kinds of stories in your own districts—because mapmaking will start again soon and we need to be ready
  • Talk about the need to “take the keys away” from legislators and support a truly independent redistricting commission
  • Ohio Redistricting Timeline:

bit.ly/RedistrictingTimeline

7 of 30

What’s a better way to redistrict?

8 of 30

States with Insulated Independent Citizen Commissions

Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission

First responsible for map-making in 2001.

Archived website

California Citizens Redistricting Commission

First responsible for map-making in 2011.

Archived website

Colorado Independent Redistricting Commissions

(separate commissions for the state legislature & congressional map making)

Approved by voters in 2018 & first responsible for map-making in 2021.

Michigan Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission

Approved by voters in 2018 & first responsible for map-making in 2021.

9 of 30

# of members

Initial Vetting of Applicants

Final Selection

Arizona

5 (2-2-1)

Judicial Nominating Commission selects pool

*Legislative Party Leaders (4)

*First 4 members choose 5th (must be non-partisan, serves as chair)

California

14 (5-5-4)

*Panel of auditors selects pool

*Legislative leaders may strike candidates from pool

*Random selection (8)

*First 8 members choose additional 6 members

Colorado

12 (4-4-4)

Panel of judges

Michigan

13 (4-4-5)

*Secretary of State randomly creates pool

*Legislative leaders may strike candidates from pool

Secretary of State randomly selects

10 of 30

Required Qualifications

Future Prohibitions

Arizona

*Registered with same party/non-party for 3 years

*No candidacy for public office (except school board) (3 years)

*No paid lobbying (3 years)

*Not political party officer (3 years)

California

*Voted in 2 of last 3 statewide elections

*Not switched parties (5 years)

*Not a candidate for office, not a party official, not donated more than $2000, not a paid campaign worker, not a lobbyist

Colorado

*No candidates for state/federal office (5 years)

*No paid campaign work (3 years)

*Not party official (above precinct level) (3 years)

*Not lobbyist (3 years)

*Not on state leg redistricting commission

Michigan

*Not candidate for office (6 years)

*Not party officer or paid campaign worker (6 years)

*Not employee of the legislature or non-civil service state employee (6 years)

*Prohibited from seeking state or local office for 5 years

11 of 30

Line Drawing Rules (Michigan)

  • Districts must be contiguous and of equal population.
  • Districts ought "reflect the state's diverse population and communities of interest.“
  • Districts ought not advantage or disadvantage disproportionately any political party based on "accepted measures of partisan fairness.“
  • Districts ought not favor no disfavor any incumbent or candidate.
  • Districts ought respect existing political boundaries such as those of towns and cities
  • Districts ought be reasonably compact.

12 of 30

Arizona

3-2 (2R, 1I)

California

Unanimous

Colorado

11-1 (4I, 4R, 3D)

Michigan

8-5 (4I, 2D, 2R)

Commission Vote on 2022 Congressional Maps

13 of 30

Congress

State Legislature

Arizona

5.1 R

1.1 R/1.6 R

California

9.2 D

8.6 D/8.6 D

Colorado

1.9 R

0.1 D/2.3 D

Michigan

2.8 R

2.1 R/3.8 R

Efficiency Gap*, 2022 Maps

*Zero=parties treated equally.

**2022 Ohio Congressional map has a 15.3 R score.

14 of 30

Moore v. Harper +

The ISL(T)

15 of 30

Overview

NC partisan gerrymandering litigation

Background

History & Cases

ISL theory: State courts have no power to review legislatures’ actions related to federal elections

Constitutional Issues

U.S. Constitution Elections Clause

Implications

State judicial power & voting rights

16 of 30

Background

  • February 2022
    • Harper et. al. v. Hall et. al.: NC Supreme Court strikes down state legislature & congressional maps for partisan gerrymandering
    • State trial court orders special masters to draw 2022 congressional map
  • March 2022
    • NC legislators petition SCOTUS for writ of cert
  • June 2022
    • Moore v. Harper: SCOTUS grants writ of cert & will hear case in the fall

17 of 30

Moore v. Harper

  • NC legislature argument
    • Independent state legislature theory (ISL)state courts cannot exercise oversight authority over legislatures when it comes to setting rules for federal elections.
    • U.S. Constitution - Elections Clause: “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.”
    • “Legislature” taken literally to mean legislators may enact rules for federal elections with no oversight from state courts

18 of 30

History

  • Bush v. Gore: Justices William Rehnquist, Clarence Thomas & Antonin Scalia mused about this concept.

Our view…

  • Framers of the Constitution knew how to grant sole and unreviewable authority.
  • U.S. Senate granted “sole power to try all Impeachments.”
  • Not done here

19 of 30

History: SCOTUS precedent

  • Ohio const.: popular vote could (dis)approve any law enacted by the legislature
  • Through a referendum, voters rejected a redistricting act for congressional elections
  • Ruling: A state legislature under Article I is not independent of its state constitution, but is rather bound by it
  • Minnesota legislature argued that under Elections Clause, governor’s approval wasn’t necessary to pass a redistricting bill
  • Ruling: Legislature’s authority to regulate congressional elections must be exercised in accordance with the state constitution

20 of 30

History: SCOTUS precedent (cont’d.)

  • Legislature argued that Article I prevented AZ from having independent redistricting commission
  • Ruling: SCOTUS interpreted “legislature” as the entire legislative process described by the state const., not just the state legislature itself
  • District court struck down NC’s 2016 congressional map for partisan gerrymandering
  • Ruling: Partisan gerrymandering is a political question, not justiciable - Upheld state constitutional constraints enforced by state courts against state legislatures in congressional elections

21 of 30

Implications

  • State constitutional protections rendered null and void in federal elections
  • Partisan manipulation of elections instead of professional, nonpartisan election administration
  • Potential impact on voter registration, vote by mail, limitations on voting hours/locations, secret ballot, etc.

22 of 30

Implications: Ohio

  • 2022: Debates over who has the power to say whether elections could be moved
  • Legislative leaders explicitly denying power of state courts
  • Good news: most radical interpretation of ISLT unlikely

“Redistricting is a legislative task because it requires legislative, not judicial, judgments,” OH Senate President Matt Huffman & House Speaker (& ORC co-chair) Bob Cupp

23 of 30

Continued advocacy to support democracy

24 of 30

25 of 30

ohiodebatecommission.org/playbook

26 of 30

Sunday, Sept 18, 2-5pm. RSVP HERE.

Volunteer Appreciation Picnic & Party!

Maple Shelter, Alum Creek Park, Galena

Below Dam area, 4189 Lewis Center Rd

27 of 30

RSVP TODAY!

  • Food (on us), fun and fellowship.
  • A chance to make a day of it and enjoy the fun things on offer at Alum Creek park:
    • Walk the top of Alum Creek Dam;
    • Visit Alum Creek Beach, just five minutes away from the picnic location;
    • Hike on several nearby trails;
    • Fish;
    • Kayak or boat.

28 of 30

RSVP HERE

  • This is our chance to thank you in person for your years of hard work! What would make you decide to make the trip?
    • Family friendly activities?
    • Redistricting Dessert competition?
    • Worst district piñata?
    • In person, exclusive, off the record conversation about next steps & what would be involved in a possible ballot initiative?
    • Workshops on topics relating to ballot initiatives?
    • Presentation from an invited speaker?
    • Your ideas…
  • No Zoom Huddle in September—the next is October 12.

29 of 30

Fair Districts All Volunteer Huddles,

Monthly meetings, second Weds, 6PM

Next Huddle: 10/12/2022

Don’t forget to Donate to Fair Districts

(& coalition orgs).

30 of 30

Useful Links