Gerrymandering

Terminating “gerrymander” ghouls with transparency: Massachusetts’s 2012 redistricting approach (Part II)

Election Law Society · February 22, 2012 ·

In light of Massachusetts’ long and sordid history with the issue of gerrymandering, it came as no surprise when Democratic Representative Michael J. Moran predicted two months ago that certain residents would be skeptical of the state’s recently-released congressional redistricting plans for the 2012 election cycle. However, thanks to the Massachusetts Legislature’s commitment to governmental transparency over the last eight months, it appears that the majority of Bay State citizens are confident that fairness and equal voting rights will prevail next November.

Beginning in March of this year, the Massachusetts Legislature Redistricting Committee (the “MLRC”) was given the difficult task of creating nine new voting districts following the loss of one of the state’s congressional districts due to the 2010 Census results. In light of the state’s failed 2001 Redistricting Act (which was struck down, in part, due to its discriminatory effects on the voting rights of African-Americans), the MLRC took great steps over the spring and summer monthsto ensure that Massachusetts residents were given the opportunity to weigh in on how the district lines would be drawn for 2012. Through the use of multiple public meetings and an extremely informative and accessible website, MLRC Chairman Michael J. Moran and his colleagues hoped that their “open-forum” philosophy would promote the idea that the new 2012 congressional districts would be created with voting equality principles in mind (as opposed to mere incumbency protection in a Democratic-dominated state). And for now, that philosophy seems to have accomplished its stated objective. [Read more…] about Terminating “gerrymander” ghouls with transparency: Massachusetts’s 2012 redistricting approach (Part II)

Terminating “gerrymander” ghouls with transparency: Massachusetts’ 2012 redistricting approach

Election Law Society · February 2, 2012 ·

by Richard Clausi

Generally known as the birthplace of the term “gerrymandering,” Massachusetts is certainly no stranger to accusations of unequal divisions of the state’s electoral power. From Governor Elbridge Gerry’s 1812 attempts to weaken the Federalist Party to House Speaker Tom Finneran’s 2001 alleged legislative efforts to diminish minority vote strength, historical reasons abound as to why vigilant Bay State minority citizens would be extremely wary of the state’s upcoming Congressional redistricting. In order to quell these inevitable fears of vote dilution and limit “beast sightings” (see right) in the 2012 election cycle, however, Massachusetts lawmakers have armed themselves with an invisible weapon – transparency.

Although its population grew a modest 3.1 percent from 2001 to 2010, Massachusetts still lost one of its ten congressional districts once the U.S. Census Bureau finalized its statistics last December. As a result, Massachusetts voters in 2012 will elect the fewest number of their representatives to the U.S. Congress (nine) since the late eighteenth century. However, before a single representative from Massachusetts even enters the 113^th Congress, the state’s Legislative Redistricting Committee must create new congressional district lines that adhere to legal doctrinal principles and (hopefully) community desires. [Read more…] about Terminating “gerrymander” ghouls with transparency: Massachusetts’ 2012 redistricting approach

Open Up Elections With Proportional Voting

Election Law Society · December 22, 2011 ·

guest blog by Elise Helgesen and Rob Richie of FairVote

The battle over legislative redistricting in states around the country this year provides strong evidence of the failure of winner-take-all elections in single-member districts in modern America. In these districts huge numbers of people will, by design, be left feeling that they are without meaningful political representation – and without a realistic chance to change it.

Although seen as the norm in the United States, winner-take-all elections invite computer-facilitated partisan gerrymandering. The power to gerrymander districts is grounded in the simple fact that, given most voters’ strong opinions about the two major parties, outcomes are predictable in any district that leans more than 55% for one party. That makes it easy to make seats “safe,” especially given natural differences in voter opinion in different areas [Read more…] about Open Up Elections With Proportional Voting

When a state’s constitution says “2011” does it really mean “2011?”

Election Law Society · December 16, 2011 ·

by Davis Walsh

Virginia’s House of Delegates appears ready to push Congressional redistricting to 2012, when Republicans will effectively control both the Commonwealth’s House and Senate. But such an action may be impermissible because Virginia’s Constitution, Article II, Section 6, mandates redistricting be completed in 2011, but the Constitution prescribes no express penalties for the failure to adopt a plan in 2011. The question that this situation presents is whether the General Assembly can ignore a provision of the Commonwealth’s Constitution when that provision includes no penalties.

Earlier this year, the Democrat-controlled Senate and Republican House of Delegates agreed on state General Assembly redistricting, but each house passed competing plans for Congressional redistricting. The Republican House of Delegates plan would keep the Commonwealth’s split of eight Republicans and three Democrats in Congress. The Democratic Senate’s plan would create a new minority influence district, which would provide minorities with a substantial number of voters in a district but not a majority. [Read more…] about When a state’s constitution says “2011” does it really mean “2011?”

What’s so wrong with a dead lizard?

Election Law Society · November 21, 2011 ·

by Lindsey J. Gill

A lot, according to a recently filed lawsuit challenging the Missouri congressional redistricting plan. Alleging that the districts violate the state’s constitution, the plaintiffs seek to have the Republican-drawn plan thrown out, and replaced with one drawn by the Missouri courts.

After the 2010 census results indicated that the population of Missouri grew only 7%, compared to the national average of 10%, the U.S. Census Bureau announced that Missouri would lose a congressional seat. With nine representatives currently serving in Congress, Missouri was left with the arduous task of redrawing the congressional districts from nine to eight, inevitably making one incumbent very unhappy. Per the state’s constitution, this task fell on the General Assembly. With Republicans heavily outnumbering Democrats in both the state’s House of Representatives and the Senate, there was little question which party would end up on the losing end of the decision. At the time, Democrats held three of the nine congressional seats, and two of those seats represented parts of St. Louis, Missouri’s largest city. With a substantial amount of the state’s population growth occurring in the Republican-dominated, suburban counties surrounding the city, namely St. Charles, Warren, and Lincoln County, the population of St. Louis City and St. Louis County declined and the area became the inevitable target of the new redistricting plan.