Gerrymandering

Discrimination in Washington State Redistricting

Election Law Society · December 5, 2022 ·

By Megan Bodenhamer

Washington State has rather progressive and cutting-edge voting and election laws. For example, Washington State was one of the pioneers for statewide mail-in voting, long before the COVID-19 pandemic. In fact, voter turnout in the state is consistently above the national average. Washington State also has one of the nation’s few bi-partisan redistricting committees. However, despite these policies—that, on the surface, may seem modern and equitable—there are problems plaguing Washington State’s elections that are far from idyllic. Specifically, Washington State has faced many allegations of voting discrimination against its Latino population.

On January 19th of this year, a lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington alleging intentional discrimination against Latino voters by the Washington State Legislature and the Washington State Redistricting Commission. The UCLA Voting Rights Project, the Campaign Legal Center, and residents of Yakima (hereafter “Plaintiffs”) filed the lawsuit against the Washington State Secretary of State, the Speaker of the Washington State House of Representatives, and the Majority Leader of the Washington State Senate. The Plaintiffs allegethat “[t]he Washington State Redistricting Commission . . . selected redistricting plans for Washington’s state legislative districts that dilute Hispanic and/or Latino voters’ ability to elect candidates of choice.” The allegations arise out of Yakima, Franklin, Adams, and Grant counties. The lawsuit alleges that the Washington State Redistricting Commission intentionally “cracked” these Latino populations and mixed them with a heavily white population, thus diluting their votes. Lines were drawn through the City of Yakima cutting across the areas where Latino populations live, while still including blocs of white voters that often vote against Latino-preferred candidates. Further exacerbating the problem, Latino voters in the included area have a low turnout rate, while those excluded have a higher rate. This case has not yet been tried, but it will certainly be a pivotal decision for the longevity of the newly created districts in Washington.

Gerrymandering is not the only place where Latino voters in Washington State face challenges. Due to its long-time mail-in voting system, Washington State employs a signature matching system to deter voter fraud. Unfortunately, in high-Hispanic counties, Latinos were four times more likely to have their mail-in ballots rejected for signature issues. As a result of these signature denial disparities, the League of United Latin American Citizens and the Latino Community Fund of Washington have filed suit against Benton, Chelan, and Yakima counties for violating the 14th and 15th Amendments. The lawsuit claims that the signature-matching policies are flawed because they are subject to the discretion of local election workers and have inconsistent results over time, harming Latino voters in Washington State.

However, there has also been successful litigation in Washington to defend Latino rights. In 2022, the UCLA Voting Rights Project settled a claim against Franklin County under the Washington Voting Rights Act, a recently passed state provision. Franklin County admitted fault in the settlement, conceding that they were in violation of the Act. Franklin County previously had an at-large voting system where a Latino-preferred candidate had never won. Under the settlement, Franklin County Commissioner elections will be required to use single-member districts beginning in 2024. While this may be a win for Latino voters in Franklin County, there is much work to be done in other counties, across the state of Washington, and across the United States.

Alabama Battles Over Redistricting

Election Law Society · March 18, 2022 ·

By: Shelly Vallone

The Alabama Senate gave final approval for a redistricting plan of Alabama’s congressional districts on November 3, 2021 after Governor Kay Ivey commenced a special reapportionment session on October 28, 2021 to complete the mandatory redrawing of Congressional, State House of Representatives, State Senate, and State Board of Education districts after the 2020 Census. The Senate mostly maintained the status quo, notably preserving the state’s only majority-black Congressional district without adding another. Ahead of the plan’s approval, Alabama state Senators Rodger Smitherman and Bobby Singleton, along with four Alabama voters, filed suit on September 27, 2021, in the United States District Court Northern District of Alabama Southern Division, asking the Court to declare the current districting plan unconstitutional and allow the legislature to remedy the violations ahead of the 2022 elections.

In their amended complaint, filed the day after the Senate’s approval, the plaintiffs argue the plan “was drafted by incumbent members of Alabama’s Congressional delegation to maintain their current districts with only those changes necessary to equalize populations.” The plaintiffs also stress the urgency of their claim in light of the fast-approaching 2022 elections. Candidates seeking nomination in a party primary must file a declaration of candidacy with the state party chairman by January 28, 2022. Therefore, the plaintiffs asked the Court to conduct a final hearing before the end of 2021 to settle whether the plan constitutes a racial gerrymander before the primary elections in May 2022.

Bready or Not: Texas, 2022 Redistricting, and Donut-Shaped Districts

Election Law Society · March 9, 2022 ·

It has been ten years, a decennial census, and the Republican-controlled Texas legislature has redrawn the state maps, with incumbents finding themselves drawn out of their own districts and would-be challengers finding paths to success becoming narrower, donut- and donut-hole districts, and a flurry of legal and public pushback against the announced maps.

Incumbent Representative Vicente Gonzalez, whose district pre-redistricting was the Rio Grande Valley’s District 15, has announced his intent to run in the new District 34 – in part because his home is in the new district’s boundaries. In north Texas, similar issues are taking place: Salman Bhojani, a Democratic candidate for Texas Senate District 9 since May 2021, recently announced the end of his campaign after the redrawn maps completely changed District 9 from a competitive one to a safe Republican district. And when redrawing lines, even the party in charge cannot always avoid collateral damage, as in the odd case of District 34 losing six Republican-leaning counties to an adjacent district, just as the Republican Party had been making meaningful headway and the long-term Democratic incumbent was retiring. However, incumbent district-jumping isn’t new, at least for Texas. Longtime Congressman Lloyd Doggett, first elected to Congress in 1995, has already survived redrawing and jumping into new districts, and is looking to do so again with a jump from District 35 to District 37.

Ohio: Will Redistricting Remove Its “Swing State” Status?

Election Law Society · March 4, 2022 ·

By: Jayde Morgan

With the exception of the last few years, Ohio had always seemed to fall firmly into the category of a “swing-state.” In 2016, it was seen as a vital state for either candidate to claim victory over. However, since 2016, Ohio has come to be seen as a firmly Republican-held state. Some have gone so far as to claim that Ohio should no longer be on the roster of states that Presidential candidates should visit and attempt to win. This is a marked change from 2012 when former President Barack Obama won 50.1% of the vote and United States Senator Sherrod Brown won 50.3% of the vote.

At that time, the Ohio government was divided with a Republican governor, one Republican Senator, one Democratic senator, a Republican House of Representatives, a Republican State Senate and State House of Representatives, but ultimately voted for Democrat, Barack Obama in the presidential election. Comparatively, Republican President Donald Trump received 53.3% of the votes in the 2020 election and Republicans gained a supermajority in the House of Representatives.

With Ohio becoming a staunchly conservative state, it seems inevitable that redistricting would reflect this trend. The Brennan Center recently filed a lawsuit to force the Ohio Redistricting Commission to redraw maps that they claim are “a master class in how to achieve a one-party state” or, in other words, the result of an effort to further solidify the Republican supermajority in the once “purple” state. The lawsuit was filed on Monday, September 27, 2021 and focuses on the alleged violation of equal protection and associational rights and the prohibition of partisan gerrymandering. Though gerrymandering is not a new concept in Ohio, many were outraged that the alleged extreme partisan gerrymandering came on the heels of a 2015 constitutional amendment that was specifically created to reduce partisan gerrymandering.

2021 Redistricting in Indiana: Solidifying Incumbent Protection

Election Law Society · February 23, 2022 ·

On Monday, October 4, Governor Eric Holcomb signed into law the proposed 2021 redistricting maps for the State of Indiana. In a prepared statement, Holcomb thanked “both the House and Senate for faithfully following through in an orderly and transparent way,” adding “a special thanks to every Hoosier who participated in the process by sharing their local perspective and input.” Critics reacted very differently, decrying both the process—as rushed and secretive—and the result—an unfair dilution of minority and urban voter strength. Ultimately, whatever the validity of either of these statements, the 2021 maps do ensure one thing: solid incumbent protection and a continued advantage to the current party in power in the Indianapolis statehouse. The following considers the process that played out in Indiana, the criticisms leveled against this process, and its likely results.

Like past iterations of redistricting, the 2021 redistricting process in Indiana could not get underway without data from the U.S. Census Bureau. But as it has affected so many other instances of life in the United States, the COVID-19 pandemic caused snags, resulting in a census data delay of more than four months—data that was expected to be released in March ended up with a release date in early August. In a series of five redistricting hearings, held in select locations throughout the state from August 6th to August 11th, stakeholders, voting activists, and interested members of the public disagreed on what should occur as a result of the census data delay. Some of those testifying argued the redistricting process must be slowed down to permit the public an opportunity to review proposed maps and voice their concerns—after all, they would be drawn in just about one month, publicly released, and then go to a vote soon after. Instead, Indiana Republicans noted their intention to quickly advance the maps once they obtained the data, raising their own concerns that further delays could cause problems for county officials preparing for the 2022 election.