redistricting commission

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.

Shifting Deadlines: How Changes in the Statutory Redistricting Deadlines Will Impact California’s Elections and Voters (Part 2 of 2)

Election Law Society · February 14, 2022 ·

By: Elizabeth Profaci

As discussed in part one of this two-part series, California passed the VOTERS First Act (“the Act”) in 2008, and ever since, the California Citizens Redistricting Commission (“the Commission”) has drawn the state’s legislative and congressional districts. As part of the redistricting process, the Act imposes deadlines on the Commission, in part to ensure the public has enough time to participate in the redistricting process. The COVID-19 pandemic caused delays in the release of census data and so, in Legislature v. Padilla, the California Supreme Court adjusted the deadlines imposed by the Act to allow the deadlines to change based on federal delay. However, in Legislature v. Weber, the California Supreme Court ordered the Commission to release the preliminary maps no later than November 15, 2021, and to approve and certify the final maps by December 27, 2021.

This change to the deadlines coincided with the holidays and there were concerns that this will affect the public’s ability to meaningfully comment on the proposed maps. As early as May 2021, community-based organizations and civil rights groups submitted comments to the Commission urging later deadlines. The Integrated Voter Engagement (IVE) Redistricting Alliance, which was created to “empower low-income Black, Indigenous, and people of color (BIPOC) residents to participate in the 2021 state and local redistricting processes and empower community residents to participate,” explained that community groups will hold workshops and meetings so that they can meaningfully contribute to the redistricting process. The IVE urged the Commission to move the deadlines outside the holiday period, otherwise, communities will not be able to contribute to and participate in the redistricting process in the same way they would in a normal year.

A Bonus Seat for the Ocean State?

Election Law Society · February 9, 2022 ·

By: Peter Quinn

It would probably surprise most Americans that tiny Rhode Island, the smallest U.S. state by area, has been afforded at least two members of the House of Representatives since the 1790s. The census reapportionment process has been very kind to the state as of late, resulting in the state retaining its current two seats for the last ten censuses, losing a third seat during the Great Depression. This is especially stark when compared to Delaware, with only about 100,000 fewer people than Rhode Island but bereft of multiple Representatives throughout its history other than from 1813-23.

In the run-up to the 2020 Census, however, Rhode Islanders began to worry that their population growth was not keeping pace with other states, or at least not enough to guarantee the continued existence of its second seat. With the state controlled by Democrats, including the holders of both House seats, a potentially ugly fight was brewing that would determine who would become the standard-bearer when the two districts consolidated.