The Ballot Bulletin: September 2018

* Redistricting
* State-by-state redistricting procedures
* Gerrymandering
* Voting policy
* Voter identification laws by state
* Automatic voter registration
* Early voting
* Absentee voting
* Online voter registration
* Ballot access
* Ballot access for presidential candidates
* Ballot access for major and minor party candidates
* List of political parties in the United States

Stay on top of election policy news throughout the states

Email *

First Name

Please complete the Captcha above

In The Ballot Bulletin, Ballotpedia tracks developments in election policy at the federal, state, and local levels. Each issue will include an in-depth feature such as an interview or event timeline. We will also discuss recent prominent events relating to electoral and primary systems, redistricting, and voting provisions.

This month's edition: This month, with most states' legislatures having adjourned for the year, we take a look back at legislative activity relevant to redistricting and election policy. We will also bring you up to speed on recent developments in North Carolina, where a federal district court struck down the state's congressional district map as an illegal partisan gerrymander.

## Legislation analysis: what kinds of redistricting and election policy bills have states been considering this year?[edit]

Most states' legislatures have adjourned for the year, bringing the lawmaking season to a close. Let's take a look back at the various redistricting and election policy bills that the states have considered — and in some cases passed into law — throughout this year. (Note that bills sometimes cross over from one legislative year to the next; this is why some of the bills mentioned below were acted upon in 2017.)

* Redistricting: As of September 3, Ballotpedia tracked 314 bills relating to redistricting policy.
* Where were the bills introduced? Relevant bills have been introduced in all but the following states: Connecticut, Maine, Montana, Nevada, North Dakota, and Vermont. In Virginia, 47 relevant bills have been introduced, more than in any other state. On the map below, a darker shade of red indicates a greater number of relevant bills. In those states shaded in black, relevant bills are not being considered.
* More about Virginia's redistricting bills: Of 47 redistricting bills, none became law. Of the 47 bills, 35 were sponsored solely by Democrats, and nine were sponsored solely by Republicans. The remaining three were sponsored on a bipartisan basis. Twenty-six bills were proposed legislatively referred constitutional amendments that, if enacted, would have established independent redistricting commissions and/or additional redistricting criteria. None of these were adopted. Two (SJR290 and SJR231) were approved by the state Senate but were not brought up for a vote in the House. Virginia is one of 49 states that provides for LCRAs (only Delaware does not)
* More about Virginia: Virginia operates under divided government: Republicans control both chambers of the state legislature, but a Democrat holds the governorship. Virginia's U.S. House delegation comprises four Democrats and seven Republicans. Both of Virginia's U.S. Senators are Democrats. In the 2016 presidential election, Hillary Clinton carried the state with 49.7 percent of the vote.
* Who sponsored the legislation? Of 314 redistricting bills, 151 were sponsored solely by Democrats, and 82 were sponsored solely by Republicans. The remaining bills were sponsored by bipartisan groups of legislators or committees.
* How many of these bills have become law? Of 314 redistricting bills, 21 have been enacted into law.
* Examples of enacted bills:
* California AB801: Signed into law on October 12, 2017, AB801 expanded membership of the Independent Redistricting Commission of San Diego County from five members and two alternates to 14 members and no alternates. This bill also revised selection criteria for commissioners.
* Ohio SJR5: Enacted on February 6, 2018, SJR5 advanced a constitutional amendment establishing new procedures for congressional redistricting. On May 8, 2018, Ohio voters approved the amendment. Beginning with the 2020 redistricting cycle, the provisions of SJR5 will take effect.
* Washington SB6002: Enacted on March 19, 2018, SB6002 established the Washington Voting Rights Act. The bill stipulates that a jurisdiction can implement district-based elections in order to remedy violations of the Act. The legislation also establishes criteria for districts drawn to remedy violations of the Act.

Redistricting legislation as of September 3, 2018

* Electoral systems: As of September 3, Ballotpedia tracked 95 bills relating to electoral systems policy.
* Where were the bills introduced? Relevant bills have been introduced in 34 states. In Minnesota, nine relevant bills have been introduced, more than in any other state. On the map below, a darker shade of red indicates a greater number of relevant bills. In those states shaded in black, relevant bills are not being considered.
* Who sponsored the legislation? Of 95 electoral systems bills, 51 were sponsored solely by Democrats, and 17 were sponsored solely by Republicans. The remaining bills were sponsored by bipartisan groups of legislators or committees.
* How many of these bills have become law? Of 95 electoral systems bills, nine have been enacted into law.
* Examples of enacted bills:
* Connecticut HB05421: Signed into law on May 24, 2018, HB05421 entered Connecticut into the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. Under the compact, participating states agree to allocate their presidential electors to the winner of the national popular vote. The compact would not take effect until participating states possess a majority of electoral college votes (270).
* Maine LD1646: Enacted on October 23, 2017, LD1646 suspended implementation of ranked-choice voting pending approval of a constitutional amendment allowing for its use. LD1646 was ultimately repealed as a result of a veto referendum approved by voters on June 12, 2018.

Electoral systems legislation as of September 3, 2018

* Primary systems: As of September 3, Ballotpedia tracked 16 bills relating to primary systems policy.
* Where were the bills introduced? Relevant bills have been introduced in nine states: Alabama, Alaska, Illinois, Massachusetts, Mississippi, New York, North Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia. In each of Alabama, Illinois, and West Virginia, three relevant bills have been introduced, more than in any other state. On the map below, a darker shade of red indicates a greater number of relevant bills. In those states shaded in black, relevant bills are not being considered.
* Who sponsored the legislation? Of 16 primary systems bills, nine were sponsored solely by Democrats, and 6 were sponsored solely by Republicans. The remaining bills were sponsored by bipartisan groups of legislators or committees.
* How many of these bills have become law? Of 16 primary systems bills, none have been enacted into law.
* Examples of proposed bills:
* Alaska HB200: Had it been enacted, HB200 would have established a top-two primary system in Alaska. In a top-two primary, all candidates, regardless of partisan affiliation, are listed in the same ballot. The top two vote-getters, regardless of their partisan affiliations, advance to the general election. The bill, which was introduced in the House in 2017, failed to clear committee.
* Illinois HB0285: Had it been enacted, HB0285 would have established a top-two primary system in Illinois. The bill, which was introduced in the House in 2017, failed to clear committee.

Primary systems legislation as of September 3, 2018

## Federal court strikes down North Carolina congressional district map as unconstitutional partisan gerrymander[edit]

* What's the story? On August 27, 2018, a three-judge panel of a federal district court found that North Carolina's congressional district map constituted an illegal partisan gerrymander favoring Republicans. The court ruled two-to-one on the matter, with Judges James Wynn and Earl Britt forming the majority. Wynn penned the majority opinion. Judge William Osteen penned an opinion that concurred in part and dissented in part. The same court had earlier this year issued a similar ruling. That ruling was appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States, which remanded the case to the district court to reconsider in light of the high court's ruling in Gill v. Whitford, another partisan gerrymandering case.
* What is partisan gerrymandering? The phrase partisan gerrymandering refers to the practice of drawing electoral district maps with the intention of favoring one political party over another. To date, the Supreme Court of the United States has not issued a ruling establishing clear precedent on the question of partisan gerrymandering. The high court heard two partisan gerrymandering cases in the last term — Gill v. Whitford, out of Wisconsin, and Benisek v. Lamone, out of Maryland — but declined in both to directly address the question of whether a district map can be struck down as a partisan gerrymander. Instead, the court's rulings were made on standing grounds (as in Gill) and procedural grounds (as in Benisek).
* What comes next? The district court stipulated that no elections taking place after November 6, 2018, could be conducted using the invalidated congressional map. The court did not, however, order an immediate remedy (i.e., one applicable to the November 6, 2018, general election) and instead asked the parties to the suit to submit briefs to the court by August 31, 2018, "addressing whether this Court should allow the State to conduct any future elections using the 2016 Plan."
* Reps. David Lewis (R) and Ralph Hise (R), redistricting committee leaders, announced their intention to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for a stay of the district court's decision: "This order would launch our elections system into mass chaos, and only serve to achieve partisan goals just 10 weeks before the midterm elections. We expect that Judge Wynn's opinion will meet the same fate at the Supreme Court as his failed effort to force a special election on voters last year." House Speaker Tim Moore (R) and Senate President Phil Berger (R) criticized the district court ruling in a joint statement: "What the court suggests is impossible. [We’re] not aware of any other time in the history of our country that a state’s congressional delegation could not be seated, and the result would be unmitigated chaos and irreparable voter confusion."
* Democratic lawmakers and congressional candidates voiced support for the district court's ruling. Dan McCready, a Democratic congressional candidate for the 9th District, said, "Right now, millions of people across North Carolina are not being heard because politicians rigged the system to benefit themselves at the cost of the people they're supposed to represent." House Minority Leader Darren Jackson (D) indicated that he would support conducting a special congressional election after the regularly scheduled general election using a new map: "If it is possible to redraw the districts so we can have constitutional districts for the first time this decade, then I hope the court will do it, even if it means that the General Assembly will have to pay for a December election. Otherwise, the Republicans are rewarded for bad behavior."
* On August 31, 2018, the plaintiffs (Common Cause and the League of Women Voters) filed a brief with the district court requesting that the court not order a remedy until after the 2018 election cycle, arguing that such a remedy would "be too disruptive and potentially counterproductive."
* On September 4, 2018, the district court announced that no changes would be made to the map in advance of November’s election, finding that “imposing a new schedule for North Carolina's congressional elections would, at this late juncture, unduly interfere with the State's electoral machinery and likely confuse voters and depress turnout.”
* Election context: North Carolina's current U.S. House delegation comprises 10 Republicans and three Democrats. All 13 seats are up for election on November 6, 2018. Primaries for these seats took place on May 8, 2018. For more information about North Carolina's 2018 congressional elections, see this article.

## See also[edit]

* Election policy on Ballotpedia
* Electoral systems legislation at the state and city levels in the United States, 2018
* Primary systems legislation at the state and city levels in the United States, 2018
* Redistricting legislation at the state and city levels in the United States, 2018
* Federal redistricting legislation in the United States, 2017-2019 (115th Congress)

v • e

Ballotpedia coverage by project

Federal|

U.S. President • Executive Branch • Legislative Branch • U.S. Senate • U.S. House • Judicial Branch • SCOTUS

State|

State Executive Officials • State Legislatures • State Courts • State Ballot Measures • Recalls

Local|

Municipal Government • School Boards • Local Courts • Local Ballot Measures • Recalls • Expanded local election coverage

Policy|

Administrative State • Budgets • Civil liberties • Education • Elections • Energy • Environment • Finance • Healthcare • Immigration • Pensions

News|

The Daily Brew • Ballotpedia's Polling Indexes • Scott Rasmussen's Number of the Day

Indexes|

Index of Contents • Index of Terms