The redistricting process is already underway. It is important that we do everything in our power to ensure a fair redistribution process, as we will be keeping the next set of maps for a decade. If we allow state legislators to manipulate the cards as they did in 2010, it will lock voters into another decade of unfair and callous representation. So what can we do in our own states? The Supreme Court last considered the issue in 2004 in a case marked by the unanimous opinion of Justice Anthony Kennedy, which left the door open for the courts to intervene if a „workable“ standard for identifying and measuring inappropriate electoral boundaries could be developed. Every ten years, states begin the process of redrawing their county boundaries for federal and state officials. The process varies by state, but there are certain requirements and factors to consider when drawing lines. As in most states, the power to sign South Carolina`s legislative and congressional districts rests with the legislature. These districts are drawn by law, which means they can be rejected by the governor. The legislature can override the governor`s veto with a two-thirds vote of its members in each chamber. Thanks to historical precedents, South Carolina uses some traditional redistricting criteria that are not included in the law and has not adopted new criteria. During the 2010 redistricting cycle, there was no successful court challenge to South Carolina`s maps. As in most states, the power to sign Rhode Island`s legislative and congressional districts rests with the legislature. These districts are drawn by law, which means they can be rejected by the governor.
The legislature can override the governor`s veto with a three-fifths vote of its members in each chamber. In 2011, the Legislative Assembly established an advisory commission (only for the 2010 redistribution cycle) to assist in this task. The commission consisted of 18 members: As in most states, the power to draw Oregon`s legislative and congressional districts rests with the legislature. These districts are determined by law and are vetoed by the governor. If the legislature fails to issue new cards within the state`s constitutional deadline, two fallback mechanisms come into effect. For constituencies, the Secretary of State is responsible for adopting new maps by August 15. For congressional districts, citizens have the power to bring a special lawsuit in a specific district court. Upon filing, the chief justice of the state Supreme Court appoints retired justices to a panel that accepts congressional districts for review and approval by the Supreme Court.
Florida`s Senate and congressional maps have been the subject of several lawsuits that have lasted more than half a decade, resulting in the redesign at least once. The lawsuit stems from two constitutional amendments passed by Florida voters in 2010. Known as the Fair Districts Amendments, they were named after the organization that sponsored the campaigns to put the changes on the ballot. The amendments (Florida Constitution, Article III, Sections 20 and 21) added new criteria for legislative and congressional districts to the state constitution, as well as prohibitions on restricting equality of opportunity for racial and linguistic minorities in the election of candidates of their choice. The state Senate has posted on its website a schedule of redistricting efforts over the past decade. The battle for manipulated maps will be particularly fierce in the battlefield states of Florida (high risk), Georgia (extreme risk), North Carolina (extreme risk), Pennsylvania (medium risk), Texas (extreme risk) and Wisconsin (extreme risk). The report details the risk of manipulation in these countries. In the Supreme Court cases, Democratic voters in Wisconsin and Republican voters in Maryland argued that partisan gerrymandering violated their rights under the U.S. Constitution, either the right to freedom of expression and association, or the guarantee of equal protection of the law. The redistricting reforms in the For the People Act would prohibit gerrymandering for congressional districts by preventing a party from controlling the redistricting process. The bill would require independent redistribution commissions for federal seats. This means that mapping cannot take place in the dark, without accountability for public contributions and legal challenges.
The For the People Act would not allow rigged districts to decide federal policy. „We looked at the laws on the books to determine where there are clear safeguards — and where they don`t — and then assigned an understandable assessment to clarify the threats,“ said Jack Noland, research director at RepresentUs. In Utah, failure was the easiest: the Republican-controlled Utah legislature simply ignored the maps unanimously recommended by the Advisory Commission, which would have created a very competitive, slightly Democratic congressional district in Salt Lake City. Instead, he adopted a map that surgically divides Salt Lake City among the state`s four congressional districts to create four strong Republican districts. A lawsuit challenging the legally drawn map as a partisan gerrymander is pending in state court, but will not be heard until the 2022 midterm elections. In the first 160 years of our nation`s history, all of the redistricting was done by state legislators, with little guidance on when and how to do it — or even if it should be done at all. In fact, some states have gone decades without changing county boundaries. In the mid-20th century, a series of court cases laid the groundwork for a modern redistribution that required districts to be redrawn every ten years to accommodate population movements and maintain the „one person, one vote“ rule. For Ohio Republicans, the theoretical possibility that Democrats could control the process in four years did not seem so risky in a state that had increasingly misrepresented Republicans since the reforms were passed. Although the Ohio Supreme Court dismissed the congressional map of the legislature as an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander, the reforms limited the remedies it could impose: while the court could order the legislature to redraw the map, it was prohibited from drawing its own map or appointing a special master for it. When Ohio officials continued to turn their noses up from the court and simply passed another gerrymander, a tight schedule forced the court to allow the use of the gerrymander card in the 2022 election.
(A similar dynamic played out with respect to Ohio`s legislative maps, where courts repeatedly minted cards as gerrymander only to let the state`s legislative redistricting commission pass another gerrymander.) The closure of federal courts would be „terrible news for American democracy,“ said Nicholas Stephanopoulos, a professor at the University of Chicago School of Law who is an attorney for the Wisconsin challengers. „The practice of gerrymandering in many states undermines the idea of what it means to be a democracy.“ „This report makes clear that gerrymandering is a national crisis that requires an urgent and courageous solution. Politicians are already preparing to choose their voters in this year`s election. But with the For the People Act, Congress has a chance to stop them before they start,“ said Josh Silver, CEO and co-founder of RepresentUs.