redistricting maps

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.

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 Growing, Shrinking Problem – Mississippi’s Challenges in Redistricting

Election Law Society · January 26, 2022 ·

By: Theo Weber

While federal congressional elections are not being held in Mississippi until 2022, and state house and senate races aren’t until 2023, the redistricting process in the “Magnolia state” is well underway. However, Mississippi is currently facing a problem that has been accelerating in recent years, causing issues for legislators drawing the maps: that problem is population decline.

From 2000 to 2010, Mississippi saw an increase in population just shy of 125,000 people, a 4.31% increase. However, from 2010 to 2020, Mississippi saw a decrease in population of right around 6,000 people, one of only three states in the United States to see a population decline in the decade.

Shifting Deadlines: How Changes in the Statutory Redistricting Deadlines Will Impact California’s Elections and Voters (Part 1 of 2)

Election Law Society · December 13, 2021 ·

By: Elizabeth Profaci

After California passed the Voters FIRST Act (“the Act”) in 2008, the California Citizens Redistricting Commission (“the Commission”) has drawn the state’s legislative and congressional districts. Among other provisions pertaining to the work of the Commission, the Act provides deadlines for the release of draft maps for public comment, approval, and certification the Commission must follow. The Act requires the Commission to release at least one set of draft maps by July 1 of the year following the census and the California Constitution requires that final maps must be approved and certified to the Secretary of State by August 15 of that same year.

However, the COVID-19 pandemic has caused delays with the release of census data, which makes complying with these statutory and constitutional deadlines impossible. Recognizing this difficulty, the Legislature of the State of California filed an emergency petition requesting a writ of mandate to adjust the deadlines. In Legislature v. Padilla, the California Supreme Court granted the Legislature’s motion and adjusted the deadlines to require the Commission to release the first map drafts for public comment by November 1, 2021 and to approve and certify the final maps by December 15, 2021. Additionally, the court concluded that “relevant state deadlines should be shifted accordingly” in the event of “further federal delay.” In light of the court’s holding, the Legislature adopted SB 594 in September 2021, which would codify the holding in Padilla.