Redistricting lawsuits relating to the 2010 Census

See also: Redistricting in Alabama

April 2010: Shelby County challenge to the Voting Rights Act

See also: Shelby County v. Holder

In April 2010, the Shelby County Commission voted to approve a lawsuit by County Attorney Frank "Butch" Ellis challenging the constitutionality of sections 4(b) and 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.^[2] The suit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, was paid for by the Project on Fair Representation, who describe themselves as "a not-for-profit legal defense fund designed to support litigation that challenges racial and ethnic classifications and preferences in state and federal courts."^[3]

The sections in question dealt with the issue of preclearance, where areas designated under the VRA must get all voting changes approved by the U.S. Department of Justice. A total of 16 states, including Alabama, had to receive some form of approval under the act. Congress renewed these sections in 2006 for another 25 years without updating the parts of the country included. Shelby County argued that this was done without sufficient evidence, saying, "It simply was not rational in theory or practice to impose preclearance on the covered jurisdictions through 2031 based on voting statistics from 1964, 1968, and 1972."^[4]

The Justice Department defended the law, saying that these areas continued to show trends of discrimination, arguing, "The symptoms of discrimination have changed, but the underlying disease remains the same in the very jurisdictions that have been the subject (of federal oversight) since its original enactment."^[4] Following oral arguments made on February 2, 2011, U.S. District Judge John Bates asked for written comments regarding the coverage formula as it was used in 1965. Ellis contended the case had the potential to make it to the U.S. Supreme Court.^[5]

September 2011: Initial federal court decision

On September 21, 2011, a federal court in Washington, D.C. upheld the law and rejected the lawsuit.

In a 151-page opinion issued by Judge John Bates, the court held there were still instances of intentional racial discrimination which would require the Voting Rights Act to protect minorities.^[6]

June 2013: Supreme Court decision

The case eventually made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court as Shelby County, Alabama v. Holder, Attorney General, et al. On June 25, 2013, the court issued a 5-4 ruling that effectively struck down the coverage formula in section five of the Voting Rights Act. The majority stated that the formula used to enforce the VRA was unconstitutional and needed to be updated. Chief Justice John Roberts, in the court's opinion, wrote, "Our country has changed, and while any racial discrimination in voting is too much, Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy that problem speaks to current conditions."^[7]

The court did not issue a holding on section 5 itself, with Roberts saying, "Congress may draft another formula based on current conditions."^[8]

August 2012: Legislative Black Caucus lawsuit

On August 10, 2012, state Democrats, black lawmakers, and others filed suit to block the implementation of legislative redistricting plans. According to the lawsuit, the plans diluted minority voting strength, violated the one person, one vote principle, and illegally split counties in order to consolidate Republican dominance in other districts. Meanwhile, Republican lawmakers argued that "they were complying with the Voting Rights Act in moving black voters to existing majority-minority districts."^[9][10]

Politico summarized the broader issue as follows:^[10]

A three-judge Federal District Court panel rejected the challenge, but the case was appealed to the United States Supreme Court. On March 25, 2015, the court ruled in a 5-4 decision that the lower court's initial ruling was legally erroneous. In the court's majority opinion, Justice Stephen G. Breyer wrote, "That Alabama expressly adopted and applied a policy of prioritizing mechanical racial targets above all other districting criteria (save one-person, one-vote) provides evidence that race motivated the drawing of particular lines in multiple districts in the State." The court did not go so far as to deem the district lines unconstitutional, however. Instead, the court sent the case back to Federal District Court for further review.^[10][12]

Assessing the impact of the case, legal scholar Rick Hasen wrote the following:^[13]

References

See also: Redistricting in Alaska

Note: July 14, 2011, was the deadline for challenges to the state's redistricting plan.

July 2011: Fairbanks borough lawsuit

On June 24, 2011, the Fairbanks North Star Borough Assembly voted 8–1 to sue the state over its new redistricting maps. The suit was officially filed on July 13.^[1] The community argued that the map impermissibly diluted Fairbanks voters by placing a significant portion of northwest Fairbanks in an expansive House district that included communities along the Bering Sea coastline. In addition, the Borough Assembly argued that some of the city's voters had been unnecessarily split into two House districts.^[2][3] The Alaska Constitution requires that "[e]ach house district shall be formed of contiguous and compact territory containing as nearly as practicable a relatively integrated socio-economic area." The Assembly's resolution can be found here.

A group of Fairbanks residents filed a similar but separate lawsuit challenging the redistricting plan.^[4]

July 2011: Petersburg lawsuit

On July 12, 2011, the City of Petersburg filed a complaint against Alaska's legislative redistricting map. Joining the suit as plaintiffs were a board member of the Petersburg Indian Association and a local resident. The complaint argued that the map violated the Alaska Constitution by including Petersburg and part of Juneau in a single district. The plaintiffs argued that the regions were not socioeconomically integrated.^[5]

July 2011: Mat-Su challenge vetoed

After a unanimous vote by the Borough Assembly in favor of challenging the state's redistricting plan, the Mat-Su mayor vetoed the resolution. The Assembly attempted to override the veto, but could not get the required supermajority.^[6] In passing the original resolution, the Assembly was primarily motivated by House District 6, which included Fishhook, Sutton-Chickaloon and Delta Junction.^[3]

July 2011: Court consolidates lawsuits

Judge Michael McConahy of Alaska's Fourth District Superior Court decided to consolidate the three challenges to the state redistricting plan into a single case. The trial was set for January 2012 in Fairbanks.^[7][8]

August 2011: Board issued defense based on Voting Rights Act

One of the main points at issue in Alaska's consolidated redistricting lawsuit was the shape of District 38, the subject of the original Fairbanks lawsuits. The Alaska Redistricting Board announced that it would not defend the district on the basis of social or economic factors. Rather, the Board defended the district under the Voting Rights Act, which mandated fair representation for minorities. Counsel for Fairbanks residents, Mike Walleri, welcomed the move, arguing that it simplified the facts at issue in the case.^[9]

October 2011: Fairbanks Borough out, Petersburg repositions

On October 25, 2011, the Fairbanks North Star Borough filed a motion to have itself removed from the consolidated redistricting lawsuit. The borough cited cost overruns as the reason for backing out of the suit. Following the Fairbanks decision, the City of Petersburg decided to consolidate its position, dropping some of its more tenuous arguments and focusing on the new districts' lack of compactness. According to the Juneau Empire, the recent Department of Justice pre-approval made several of the city's claims harder to litigate. Petersburg was split into two districts under the new plan.^[10][11]

October 2011: Withdrawal challenged and permitted

On October 31, the attorney for the group of Fairbanks citizens challenging the state's redistricting plan filed a partial opposition to the request for withdrawal. Fairbanks Assemblyman Tim Beck voiced opposition to the withdrawal. The partial opposition sought to block the withdrawal unless the vote to withdraw was public and Beck consented. The borough argued that it did not need the consent of the other parties to withdraw, but the opponents argued that, since the cases had all been consolidated, other plaintiffs should have had input on the decision.^[12]

Ultimately, the court decided to allow the Fairbanks Borough to withdraw, deciding on November 3 to permit the move. The judge noted that the Fairbanks Assembly's open meeting rules were not at issue in the case and that the remaining plaintiffs were free to argue points raised by the borough's filings without amending their own.^[13]

November 2011: Borough assembly funds lawsuit

Although the Fairbanks Borough Assembly officially withdrew from the consolidated redistricting lawsuit on November 3, the Assembly voted to provide $25,000 in legal services for the remaining plaintiffs. The Assembly was previously deadlocked on the issue, but freshly sworn-in Assemblyman John Davies broke the tie. Davies was a former Democratic member of the Alaska House of Representatives.^[14]

December 2011: Petersburg challenge rejected

On December 12, 2011, Judge Michael McConahy of Alaska's Fourth District Superior Court ruled against the city of Petersburg's redistricting challenge. The city argued that the 32nd District did not meet the compactness requirements of the Alaska Constitution. However, the Redistricting Board ultimately prevailed, arguing that the district's shape was required to accommodate a minority influence district for native Alaskans.^[15][16]

The City of Petersburg chose not to appeal the decision.

December 2011: Fairbanks residents remained in lawsuit

A group of Fairbanks residents—the only plaintiffs remaining—continued their fight against the state's legislative districts. The residents contended that the state failed to consider differences within the Native Alaskan community that impacted the calculation of how many VRA districts the state should have. The Fairbanks residents argued for four VRA districts instead of the new map's five. Attorneys for the state disagreed, arguing that these differences were not relevant to the calculation.^[17][18]

December 2011: Preliminary ruling issued

On December 23, 2011, Judge Michael McConahy of Alaska's Fourth District Superior Court issued a preliminary ruling, siding with several Fairbanks residents on a number of issues concerning their pending redistricting challenge. He ruled that Districts 1, 2, 37 and 38 all violated the Alaska Constitution's compactness requirements. However, since the Voting Rights Act trumps this provision, the board had another avenue to defend its map. McConahy did rule that District 2 had no credible VRA defense. The trial was scheduled to begin on January 9, 2012.^[19][20]

January 2012: Redistricting trial begins

On January 9, 2012, a trial began for the remaining Alaska redistricting challenge. The chairman of the Redistricting Board, a redistricting expert, and two state senators testified.^[21][22][23]

The trial for the remaining Alaska redistricting lawsuit drew to a close on January 17. A final decision in the case was expected to be issued by the Fairbanks Superior court by February 6. However, observers believed that the case would ultimately be decided by the Alaska Supreme Court.^[24]

February 2012: Judge orders four districts redrawn, appealed

On February 3, 2012, Judge Michael McConahy of Alaska's Fourth District Superior Court ruled that state House Districts 1, 2, 37 and 38 violated the Alaska Constitution. McConahy found that Districts 1, 2, and 37 violated the compactness criterion of the state constitution. In addition, he found that District 37 violated the contiguity condition and that District 38 violated the socioeconomic integration condition. McConahy was less sympathetic toward the plaintiffs' claims of partisan gerrymandering, but he noted that the Voting Rights Act justifications offered for the districts were wanting. The Alaska Redistricting Board appealed the ruling with respect to Districts 37 and 38, defending the districts as drawn to comply with the Voting Rights Act.^[25] Plaintiffs planned to appeal McConahy's decision on Districts 6 and 38, arguing that the problems with District 38 were not fully recognized in the ruling. Oral arguments before the Alaska Supreme Court were set for March 13.^[26][27]

• The full ruling can be found here.

March 2012: Alaska Supreme Court ruled on maps

On March 13, 2012, the Alaska Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a lawsuit against the state's new legislative districts.

On March 14, the court ruled that the Redistricting Board had to redraw the plan with a priority on following the Alaska Constitution. The court did not specifically rule on Districts 37 and 38. Instead, it instructed the Board to first attempt to rectify the districts with the state constitution, then adjust for compliance with the Voting Rights Act. Only then, argued the court, would the justices be able to evaluate which deviations from the constitution were truly necessary.^[28]

If the map was not altered in advance of the 2012 elections, the board could have petitioned to use the contested plan as an interim map, redrawing the districts after the election season. However, since the changes ordered to Districts 1 and 2 were not contested in the appeal, these changes had to be made to any interim map. The case was remanded to Judge McConahy, who set an April 2 deadline for submission of a new plan. The plaintiffs and other interested parties were invited to submit their own proposals. The Board scheduled meetings from March 26–31 to work on a new plan.^[29][30]

• The Supreme Court's ruling can be found here.

March 2012: Board worked on new map

On March 14, 2012, the Alaska Supreme Court ruled that the Redistricting Board had to redraw its first map with a priority on following the Alaska Constitution. Only when a constitutional map was drafted could the board adjust it for compliance with the Voting Rights Act. On March 27, the board approved a preliminary plan in compliance with the state constitution. On March 29, the board approved adjustments to the Fairbanks area to satisfy the VRA. Most notably, the VRA tweaks restored a Senate seat to Fairbanks.^[31][32]

April 2012: Revised maps approved

On April 5, 2012, the Alaska Redistricting Board approved a pair of revised legislative maps. One was the revised redistricting map. The other was an interim plan approved in case the revised plan was rejected by the courts or the DOJ. The interim map was similar to the original, overturned map.^[33]

• The pre-redistricting map can be found here.
• The original redistricting map can be found here.
• The interim map can be found here.
• The revised map can be found here.

April 2012: Deadline for objections set

On April 5, 2012, the Alaska Redistricting Board approved revised redistricting maps, following a lawsuit that overturned the original plans. Judge Michael McConahy gave the plaintiffs until April 16 to file complaints regarding the revised map. The board had to submit its response to any complaints by April 18. The revised plan also faced DOJ vetting under the Voting Rights Act. The filing deadline for Alaska legislative candidates was June 1, 2012.^[34]

April 2012: Revised maps thrown out

On April 20, 2012, Judge Michael McConahy of Alaska's Fourth District Superior Court struck down the state Redistricting Board's revised map. He found that the plan still failed to ensure compliance with the Alaska Constitution. Earlier in the year, McConahy and (upon appeal) the Alaska Supreme Court overturned the Board's original plan. The Board held a public meeting on April 24 to consider an appeal.^[35][36]

• The ruling in the case can be found here.
• Details and teleconference info for the meeting can be found here.

May 2012: Board appealed, asked for interim map

On May 3, 2012, the Alaska Redistricting Board petitioned the state Supreme Court to allow the original redistricting plan to remain in place for the 2012 elections. The original plan, along with a revised plan, had been struck down by the courts. The Board appealed the latest ruling to the Supreme Court. However, with the candidate filing deadline on June 1, a ruling in that appeal might not have come in time, and a provisional map might have been required. Even once a final plan was approved, the Department of Justice still had to clear the plan.^[37][38]

May 2012: Supreme Court rejected revised maps

On May 10, 2012, the Alaska Supreme Court rejected the Alaska Redistricting Board's revised redistricting map. A previous version of the map had already been struck down by the court. Although the ruling reiterated the need to more closely adhere to the Alaska Constitution, it also gave more specific instructions regarding the map. The court ordered the Board to redraw House Districts 31 through 34 and Senate Districts P and Q. The court had previously instructed the Board to make Voting Rights Act adjustments only after the state constitutional requirements were satisfied. However, this time the court instructed the board not to make VRA adjustments since, according to the court, the Act did not justify diverging from the state constitution for the districts in question. The Board had until May 15 to revise the plans. Objections had to be filed by May 18.^[39]

May 2012: Board revised plan

On May 14, 2012, the Alaska Redistricting Board approved changes to the state legislative map in an effort to satisfy instructions issued by the state Supreme Court. The plan was the Board's third attempt to redraw Alaska's legislative districts.^[40]

May 2012: Supreme Court picks interim map

On May 22, 2012, the Alaska Supreme Court selected an interim redistricting plan for the 2012 elections. The Alaska Redistricting Board's first revised plan was approved as the interim plan. The Board's second and latest revisions were not selected. While the court did not formally rule on the latter plan, it was expected to issue instructions for revising the plan's southeast districts. The court expressed concern that the latest version would not pass muster under the Voting Rights Act.^[41]

On May 25, the Redistricting Board submitted the interim redistricting plan for DOJ pre-clearance. Plaintiffs in the redistricting lawsuit asked the court to stay the implementation of the plan until the DOJ reached a decision.^[42][43]

• The interim plan can be found here.
• The Supreme Court order can be found here.

On June 15, a U.S. District Judge ruled that Alaska's election plans could move forward while the state's interim redistricting map waited to be evaluated by a three-judge federal panel. The lawsuit was filed by a group of Alaska natives. They argued that the map could not be implemented until it was precleared by the DOJ. Specifically, they asked the judge to suspend implementation of the map until their case could be heard by a planned, three-judge panel. While this request was denied, the maps could still have been suspended by the panel, which would have placed the state's August 28 primary elections in jeopardy.^[44]

June 2012: State challenged pre-clearance requirement

With a three-judge panel set to consider on June 28, 2012, if the elections could proceed with final approval from the DOJ pending, the state challenged the pre-clearance requirement. In a press release, Lt. Gov. Mead Treadwell (R) stated, "Under Section 5, if the state wants to move a polling place across the street, it has to get federal permission. If it wants to change the wording on a form, it has to get federal permission. This federal intrusion into our state elections is unnecessary, burdensome, and unconstitutional. Congress has no basis to micromanage Alaska’s elections. It’s time to get out from under this yoke."^[45]

Attorney General Michael Geraghty stressed that the state was only challenging the requirement that federal permission is necessary prior to making any changes to the state's electoral process, not the entire Voting Rights Act.^[45]

On August 21, the state of Alaska filed suit arguing that Sections 4 and 5 of the Voting Rights Act were unconstitutional and should not be enforced. The lawsuit alleged that there was no evidence indicating that Alaska should have been on the list of states required to get approval from the U.S. Department of Justice for redistricting plans or proposed election changes.^[46]

References

See also: Redistricting in Arizona

August 2011: Voting Rights Act challenge

On August 25, 2011, the Attorney General filed a lawsuit against the federal government that challenged portions of the Voting Rights Act. Attorney General Tom Horne criticized the state's procedure and approval process as conducted by the Department of Justice, saying that Arizona demonstrated that the state is fair to racial minority voters and should no longer be subject to preclearance.^[1] The lawsuit requested a hearing before a three-judge panel. According to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, the DOJ would defend the Voting Rights Act. "The provisions challenged in this case, including the preclearance requirement, were reauthorized by Congress in 2006 with overwhelming and bipartisan support," Holder wrote in an email to the Arizona Republic.^[2]

April 2012: Challenge to implemented maps

Two lawsuits were filed in April 2012 against the new congressional and state legislative maps.^[3] Both lawsuits said the state’s independent redistricting commission violated constitutional requirements on processes and criteria for drawing maps. The suit challenging the legislative district alleged that it unconstitutionally packed Republicans into certain districts, providing an advantage to Democrats in other districts.^[4]

June 2012: Congressional map lawsuit

On June 7, 2012, Republicans filed a lawsuit in US District Court, asking that the congressional map approved by the redistricting commission be prohibited after the 2012 elections. The lawsuit contended that the voter-approved law, which allows a commission rather than the legislature to draw congressional districts, violates the Constitution. Speaker of the House Andy Tobin (R) said, "Today, the Legislature is asking the federal courts to bring the constitutional redistricting process back to Arizona's elected representatives."^[5]

U.S. District Judge Paul Rosenblatt granted a motion to create a three-judge panel to hear the case. The two other judges were to be appointed by the chief judge of the US 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.^[6]

The case got underway on August 22. Lawyers for the Republican-backed lawsuit argued it should proceed as the redistricting commission violated requirements that were put in place to protect voters. Lawyers for the redistricting commission, meanwhile, sought to have the suit dismissed, arguing the allegations were unfounded.^[7]

On October 16, Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Mark Brain dismissed parts of the lawsuit, but said it could continue and gave plaintiffs until November 9 to file a new complaint.^[8]

Brain stated that the suit could continue on the following three original arguments:^[8]

• The commission abandoned the initial grid-like map once it started to make adjustments per state Constitution requirements.
• The commission did not take into consideration suggestions by the Legislature.
• Commissioners may have violated the state's open meeting law when drawing up what eventually became Congressional District 9.

The complaints dismissed included arguments that the commission failed to advertise a proper congressional map and that it violated Open Meeting Law when discussing hiring potential mapping firms.^[8]

References

See also: Redistricting in Arkansas

Legislative map lawsuit

State senator Jack Crumbly and a group of residents from eastern Arkansas sued the three-member Board of Apportionment on January 23, 2012. The suit was filed in federal court.^[1] The lawsuit alleged that the new boundaries diluted the black vote in Crumbly's district, as the number of voting-age blacks was lowered from 58 percent to 53 percent. The maps were defended by Board of Apportionment members Governor Mike Beebe (D) and Attorney General Dustin McDaniel (D).^[2]

The hearing began on May 7.^[3] A panel of three federal judges on May 9 dismissed Secretary of State Mark Martin (R) from the suit.^[4] The court ruled it would not delay the May 22 primary as it considered the case.^[5]

On September 17, a three-judge panel upheld the new districts, rejecting Crumbly's allegations. The judges stated that the decrease was an unintended consequence, not purposeful discrimination, saying, "We find credible Governor Beebe's and Attorney General McDaniel's testimony that they did not engage in intentional discrimination or know that Representative Ingram, or any other white incumbent, would run for senator against Senator Crumbly in Senate District 24 at the time that the district map was drawn."^[6]

Crumbly's lawyer, James Valley, filed a notice of appeal with the court on October 17.^[7]

References

See also: Redistricting in California

August 2011: Republicans proposed lawsuit

Republicans announced in August 2011 that they might challenge the new legislative district maps. California Republican Party Chairman Tom Del Beccaro said they might file a referendum on August 16 for the 2012 statewide ballot to overturn the maps.^[1]

After the maps were approved, the California Supreme Court issued an order that any lawsuits be submitted electronically to the court in order to expedite the process. Registered voters had until September 29 (45 days) to file a challenge to the new maps.^[2]

Other organizations expressed dissatisfaction with the maps. The Mexican-American Legal Defense Fund (MALDEF) issused a statement that the group was disappointed in the final district lines. The National Association of Latino Elected Appointed Officials (NALEO) also expressed concern that the new maps would dilute the Hispanic vote.^[3][4]

September 2011: Senate map lawsuit

On September 15, 2011, Republicans filed a lawsuit seeking to repeal the new California State Senate map that was approved by the California Citizens Redistricting Commission. The suit -- which was prepared by the Fairness and Accountability in Redistricting (FAIR) organization -- asked the court to redraw the map.^[5] Charles Bell Jr, a Sacramento attorney, filed the suit with the California Supreme Court.^[6] As of September 2011, FAIR had raised more than $500,000 for its referendum and lawsuit efforts.^[7]

September 2011: Congressional map lawsuit

On September 29, 2011, a lawsuit was filed against the congressional districts by former Republican Congressman George Radanovich along with four others. This suit asked the court to appoint a special master to draw a new map for all 53 districts.^[8]

October 2011: Commission asked suits to be thrown out

In October 2011, attorneys for the California Citizens Redistricting Commission requested that the California Supreme Court toss out lawsuits related to the new maps.^[9]

The commission's response to the suits can be found here.^[10]

October 2011: Both lawsuits dismissed

On October 26, 2011, the California Supreme Court unanimously rejected the two lawsuits that had been filed by Republicans against the Congressional and State Senate maps. In throwing out the suits, the Court also rejected requests for an emergency order to halt implementation of the maps.^[11] The court vote was 7-0.

November 2011: Appeal to federal government

After the lawsuits were rejected by the Supreme Court, Republican leaders filed arguments with the Department of Justice, saying that the Senate map was not legal because it diluted Latino voting power.^[12] Radanovich and four other plaintiffs announced they would file a lawsuit in federal district court because the state court had already dismissed a prior lawsuit.^[13]

November 2011: Additional federal suit

At the end of November 2011, a group of Republicans led by former Governor George Radanovich filed a suit in federal court alleging that the congressional map violated the Voting Rights Act and U.S. Constitution. A similar suit was thrown out by the state court earlier that year.^[14] The lawsuit centered on the districts of three Democratic incumbents: Karen Bass, Maxine Waters, and Laura Richardson.^[15]

December 2011: Motion to stay Senate map

The group that filed a referendum to withdraw the new California State Senate map filed a motion on December 2, 2011 to request that the court immediately put a hold on using the newly drawn district map. Instead, the group requested one of three options: have a special master draw the map, use old districts, or use the new California State Assembly map and create Senate districts that combine two Assembly districts each.^[16][17]

January 2012: California Supreme Court heard oral aruments

On January 10, 2012, the California Supreme Court heard oral arguments regarding what state senate map to use in the 2012 elections. The state was reviewing submitted signatures for a referendum on the new map. If the referendum qualified, the court would decide whether the map would still be used or if a different interim map would instead be drawn up.^[18][19]

At the hearing, GOP lawyers asked the court to throw out the new Senate map for the 2012 elections. The legal fight was tied to the 47-word passage of the California Constitution which uses the phrase likely to qualify regarding a map being removed by referendum. The court had 90 days to issue a ruling.^[20] Counties had until February 24, 2012 to check signatures.^[21]

January 2012: Motion denied

On January 27, 2012, the State Supreme Court upheld the state Senate maps drawn by the California Citizens Redistricting Commission. The high court ruled that even if the referendum to toss the Senate maps qualified for the ballot, the new commission-drawn map should be used in the 2012 election.^[22]

February 2012: Judge dismissed suit

On February 10, a federal judge dismissed a lawsuit filed by a group of Republicans over the new congressional district map. The suit's dismissal meant that commission-drawn maps would be used in the 2012 elections.^[23][24]

References

See also: Redistricting in Colorado

May 2011: Republicans and Democrats filed lawsuits

Both major parties filed suit as the legislative session came to an end. In each case, an attorney and a group of plaintiffs representing each party in the state's seven Congressional districts filed the case. Mark Grueskin, a Denver based attorney, filed the Democratic case.^[1] Ryan Westfall filed the Republican case.^[2]

The Colorado Hispanic Bar Association and the Colorado Latino Forum joined the lawsuit, saying they wanted to be able to review the proposed maps to see if they diluted the Hispanic vote prior to releasing their own proposals. Attorney for the Democrats Mark Grueskin opposed the motion, saying all groups should have to release proposed maps on the same date.^[3]

Judge Hood had the power either to consider maps that failed to clear the legislature or to order that new ones be drawn.^[4]

June 2011: Lawsuits consolidated and date set

Both redistricting cases were consolidated under Denver District Court Judge Robert Hyatt. At the beginning of June, Hyatt set a trial date of Monday, October 17, 2011.^[5] Secretary of State Scott Gessler was named in both lawsuits. Deputy Attorney General Maurice Knaizer represented him.^[6]

August 2011: Deadline for lawsuit maps set

As the redistricting lawsuit moved forward, Judge Robert Hyatt ordered both major parties to submit their redistricting proposals by August 22. Groups that joined the lawsuit later had until September 2. The trial was set for October 17, 2011.^[7][8]

August 2011: Parties released maps

Democrats and Republicans both filed their plans for new congressional maps in court on August 22. Republicans stressed continuity, saying their map made the least amount of changes possible. The Democrats’ proposal, on the other hand, pushed for competitive districts, sometimes even to the detriment of Democratic incumbents.^[9]

September 2011: Other redistricting plans

The Latino Forum and Colorado Hispanic Bar Association submitted a proposal on September 2, the deadline for groups that joined the suit. Their map took the San Luis Valley and Pueblo areas from the 4th Congressional District and put Larimer County into the Boulder district.^[10] Additionally, Denver and Adams County cities would have constituted a district.^[11]

Pueblo County District Attorney Bill Thiebaut submitted two maps - both put Pueblo with the Western Slope, while one divided Denver into three districts and the other kept the current boundaries.

October 2011: Trial began

Arguments in the case began in Denver District Court on October 11. Republicans said that Democrats were attempting to move 1.5 million voters into new districts to pick up additional congressional seats, while Democrats said the makeup of the state significantly changed since district lines were drawn ten years previously. The court considered a half dozen maps.^[12]

Western Slope group Club 20, with the support of Progressive 15 and Action 22, filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the case. Club 20 submitted a map that focused on the preservation of rural communities of interest in Western, Northern and Southern Colorado.^[13]

Several members of Colorado's congressional delegation testified in the trial, including Democrats Ed Perlmutter and Jared Polis and Republican Scott Tipton.^[14][15]

October 2011: Closing arguments

This map shows the plan for Congressional districts approved by the court

Attorneys delivered their closing remarks in the case on October 31.^[16] Attorney Gina Rodriguez, representing the Colorado Hispanic Bar Association and the Colorado Latino Forum, said maps from both Republicans and Democrats as fostered partisan interests and failed to take Hispanic communities of interest into account.^[17]

Democratic lawyer Mark Grueskin asked the judge to dismiss the map presented by the Latino groups for being race-based and, thus, unconstitutional. Republican lawyer Richard Westfall criticized the Democratic map for joining communities based on current issues while ignoring historical links between communities.^[18]

November 2011: Democratic map approved

In a ruling issued November 10, Judge Hyatt decided in favor of the Moreno/South Democratic map, stating it "most accurately reflected and preserved current communities of interest in 2011."^[19]

Hyatt went on to say "the Moreno approach to redistricting Colorado will also produce the maximum amount of competition of any of the realistically proffered maps in at least three districts — the 3rd, the 6th and the 7th" and "not only does the Moreno mapping approach reflect Colorado's current communities of interest, it holds the real possibility that voters will be as engaged in the electoral process as possible."^[19]

November 2011: Republicans filed an appeal

Republicans appealed the decision to the Colorado Supreme Court on November 16, the day after the Court rejected the newly drawn state legislative maps.^[20]

The court heard arguments on December 1.^[21]

December 2011: Map upheld

On December 5, the state Supreme Court upheld the lower court ruling, dismissing the argument that the map divided too many counties into multiple districts. This effectively upheld the Democrats' map.^[22] The court said a written opinion would be issued at a later date.

The new map put Aurora into its own congressional district, split Douglas County and added Larimer County to the Boulder district. As a result, Colorado was expected to have at least three competitive races in 2012.^[23]

References

See also: Redistricting in Florida

Lawsuit against Amendment 6

U.S. Reps. Mario Diaz-Balart (R) and Corrine Brown (D) challenged Amendment 6 in court, saying it violated the Voting Rights Act and "represents an impermissible effort by Florida to limit the discretion directly delegated by the United States Constitution to the Florida Legislature."^[1] They filed suit on November 3, 2010.^[2] Brown's district in Jacksonville was 50% black, while Diaz-Balart's district in Miami was 70% Hispanic.^[3]

On January 11, 2011, Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi (R) filed a motion asking the U.S. District Court to dismiss the lawsuit, saying that it lacked jurisdiction in the case, citing Article I of the U.S. Constitution, based on the state's 11th Amendment immunity.^[4]

The American Civil Liberties Union of Florida, along with the Florida State Conference of NAACP branches and Democracia Ahora, joined the case as defendants.^[5] On March 1, five Democratic state legislators filed to join the lawsuit as defendants: state Sen. Arthenia Joyner and state Reps. Janet Cruz, Luis Garcia, Joseph Gibbons, and Perry Thurston.^[6] In a press release announcing the action, Florida Democratic Party Chairman Rod Smith said, “Florida Democrats will not sit back and allow the will of nearly 63% of Floridians to be frustrated or delayed by those who simply seek to deny Floridians fair elections in fair districts.”^[7]

January 2011: House joins lawsuit

On January 24, 2011, the Florida House of Representatives formally filed to join the challenge against the congressional redistricting measure.

According to House spokesperson Katie Betta, "The U.S. Constitution delegates authority to the state legislatures to draw congressional districts. The House believes its constitutional authority has been impeded by Amendment 6."^[8][9] As of January 27, Senate President Mike Haridopolos (R) declined to join the lawsuit, but said the case should be heard before submitting the amendments for approval.^[10]

House Speaker Dean Cannon said he was waiting to hear from the House's legal team before deciding if he would challenge the legislative redistricting amendment as well.^[11]

September 2011: District Court upholds, appeal promised

On September 9, 2011, U.S. District Judge Ursula Ungaro rejected the lawsuit. In her 22-page opinion, Judge Ungaroo said that the regulation created under the amendment was a valid part of the legislative process under the Elections Clause.^[12]

In reaction to the news, Brown said, "I am disappointed in the judge’s ruling. But this is step one. We’re going all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court."^[13]

• The full decision can be found here.

September 2011: Brown, Diaz-Balart, and State House file appeal

On September 29, 2011, the Florida House of Representatives announced that it would join the federal appeal of Amendment 6. U.S. Reps. Corrine Brown (D) and Mario Diaz-Balart (R) promised to appeal after a federal judge upheld Florida’s congressional redistricting amendment earlier in the month.

• The notice of appeal can be found here.

January 2012: Arguments heard in appeal

The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments on January 10 in the appeal of Brown v. Browning.^[14]

January 2012: 11th Circuit upholds amendments

On January 31, 2012, a panel of judges from the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Florida Amendment 6.^[15]

• The full decision can be found here.

References

See also: Redistricting in Georgia

February 2011: Dekalb County schools lawsuit

Under a redistricting plan -- proposed by interim Superintendent Ramona Tyson on February 7, 2011 -- Dekalb County would close eight schools, impacting nearly 9,000 students at a savings of $12.4 million a year. The original plan called for closing 14 schools but was scaled back. The plan was an attempt to deal with 11,300 empty seats in county schools in order to generate more state funding. The revised plan eliminates 5,125 of those seats, leaving 6,185.^[1]

Full information is available on the Dekalb County Schools website.

On March 7, 2011 the school board adopted Tyson's plan by a vote of 7-2 in favor. Of the eight schools to close, six would be decommissioned with two being put on inactive status, which allows the board to reopen them if they see fit. A number of citizens were critical of the plan, with one parent, Tasha Walker, filing a lawsuit seeking an immediate injunction against the decision of the board.^[2]

Prior to the vote, a group of Dekalb County parents hired attorney Lee Parks to represent them if the board voted to redraw attendance lines separating Vanderlyn and Austin Elementary schools. Parks stated the issue, "When you peel back the curtain, it’s creating two white schools. I think the new board member, Ms. Jester, thinks that’s some sort of political mandate that she got when she was elected.”^[3]

Parks and the parents alleged that Jester intended to segregate the schools, saying that only children in single-family homes would be able to attend the better schools under the plan. Jester denied the accusations, saying that she provided input on the plan but only considered geography and school capacity, not race, socioeconomic status or housing.^[3]

March 2011: New cities and minority voting power

Following the release of 2010 census data, the Georgia Legislative Black Caucus filed a lawsuit on March 28, 2011, seeking the dissolution of five cities in Dekalb and Fulton counties. The suit against the state alleged that normal procedures were circumvented in order to create cities with white super-majorities, which diluted minority votes and violate the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the U.S. Constitution.^[4][5] Civil Rights Movement veteran Rev. Joseph Lowery also joined the lawsuit.^[6] On June 10, the Georgia Attorney General's Office filed a motion to have the lawsuit dismissed, arguing that the formation of the cities "does not diminish anyone’s existing right to vote and did not violate the Voting Rights Act."^[7]

Population figures

2010 census figures showed Fulton County was 44.5% white and 44.1% black, while DeKalb County was about 54% black and 33.3% white. The cities that the suit sought to dissolve, all created since 2005, showed the following ratios:

References

See also: Redistricting in Hawaii

October 2011: Big Island Democrats challenge redistricting plan

In October 2011, Sen. Malama Solomon and several other Democrats filed suit, challenging the Hawaii Reapportionment Commission's decision to include most of the state's non-resident population in its redistricting counts. In past redistricting efforts, the state had excluded non-resident military and student populations. Their inclusion in 2011 redistricting calculations boosted the population of Oahu and deprived the Big Island of additional representation. The Commission argued that it excluded all the non-residents that it could given vague data.^[1]

• A copy of the petition can be found here.

October 2011: Kona lawyer files second challenge

On October 13, 2011, attorney Mike Matsukawa of Kona filed a lawsuit challenging Hawaii's redistricting plans. Unlike the first lawsuit that centered on the fact that non-residents were included, Matsukawa argued that the Reapportionment Commission did not try in good faith to exclude non-residents. He contended that the commission's eleventh-hour decision to exclude some non-residents was partially responsible for its inability to exclude them all. Matsukawa suggested that the late decision did not allow enough time to determine the actual feasibility of separating out non-residents.^[2]

• A copy of the petition can be found here.

November 2011: Governor, Reapportionment Commission file briefs

On November 25, 2011, the Hawaii Reapportionment Commission filed a brief defending the state's redrawn political lines against the two legal challenges.^[3] The Commission argued that it excluded all the non-residents that it could given vague data.^[4]

Named as a defendant in the first challenge, Hawaii Gov. Neil Abercrombie sided with the plaintiffs and asked the court to order the Commission to start over. The Commission, in turn, asked for the cases to be dismissed and for their attorney fees to be reimbursed by the plaintiffs. The cases were heard by the Hawaii Supreme Court.^[5]

January 2012: Redistricting plans overturned

On January 4, 2012, Hawaii's Supreme Court sided with plaintiffs in two lawsuits challenging the state's legislative redistricting plans. The court ruled that non-residents could not be considered in reapportionment. The Hawaii Reapportionment Commission was ordered to redraw the maps. Earlier in the year, the commission decided to consider some of the state's non-resident population in its redistricting calculations.^[6]

• The orders in the two cases can be found here and here.

January 2012: Commission asks Supreme Court to reconsider

On January 13, 2012, the Hawaii Redistricting Commission asked the Hawaii Supreme Court to reconsider its overturned redistricting plans. The commission argued that the representation provided by Deputy Attorney General Russell Suzuki was inadequate. The commission sought private counsel, but the Attorney General refused to either procure or pay for other attorneys. Gov. Neil Abercrombie (D) sided with the plaintiffs despite being named a defendant in the case. The AG's office defended Suzuki's legal representation.^[7]

April 2012: Federal lawsuit filed

On April 6, 2012, Hawaii Rep. Mark Takai (R) and several non-resident military personnel filed a federal lawsuit over the revised redistricting map. In revising the redistricting map, the Hawaii Reapportionment Board removed 100,000 non-residents from their calculations. These revisions were ordered by the Hawaii Supreme Court following a state lawsuit.^[8]

• The petition in the lawsuit can be found here.

April 2012: Federal lawsuit moves forward

A federal challenge of Hawaii's revised redistricting maps got the go-ahead on April 10, 2012. A three-judge federal panel heard the case. The original maps were struck down by state courts for including non-resident military personnel and students in population calculations. The federal suit argued that these individuals should have been included.^[9]

May 2012: Elections, lawsuit can proceed

On May 22, 2012, a federal panel refused to overturn Hawaii's redistricting plans. The court's denial of a preliminary injunction allowed both the lawsuit and the state's elections to proceed. The lawsuit argued that non-resident military personnel and students should have been included in the state's redistricting calculations. However, the court held that overturning the plan would not allow sufficient time to implement an alternative.^[10]

• The court's order can be found here.

References

See also: Redistricting in Idaho

September 2011: Failure of first commission

On September 7, 2011, Secretary of State Ben Ysursa filed a lawsuit in state Supreme Court against the redistricting commission asking the court to order the commission to reconvene with 60 days to finish their job. The same day Republican Commissioners Evan Frasure, Lorna Finman, and Lou Esposito filed suit against the commission, asking the court to adopt their proposed congressional map C38 and order the commission to reconvene for three days.^[1]

The Republican commissioners also asked the court to clarify which took precedent - the constitutional provision that counties should not be split or the state law stating districts should only include multiple counties if they are linked by state highways. Ysursa also asked for clarification on the hierarchy of what they should legally consider.^[2]

In a brief ruling on September 9, the court dismissed both lawsuits, stating that they had no legal authority at that point. Supreme Court Clerk Stephen Kenyon explained, "Unless the commission adopts a plan, the statutes and Idaho Constitution do not give the Idaho Supreme Court jurisdiction to act."^[3] The ruling said that the court would hear cases challenging the 2002 maps and their effect on the 2012 primary and general elections.

November 2011: Twin Falls County suit

On November 16, 2011, Twin Falls County filed suit in Idaho Supreme Court against the new legislative redistricting map for what it said was an unconstitutional division of 11 counties. They were joined by the counties of Kootenai, Owyhee, and Teton, along with several cities. Under the new map Twin Falls County was split into three districts, something they said put voters at a disadvantage.^[4]

Twin Falls County Prosecutor Grant Loebs offered an alternative map that was said to create districts which kept more counties intact and was more uniform in population than the current map.^[5] The map they submitted split only 6 counties, as opposed to the disputed map that divided 11. The petition argued that cities shouldn't be considered communities of interest. “Cities change constantly, they grow and they expand, whereas county borders are fixed and never change. So that's part of the problem with saying that cities are a community of interest,” Loeb stated.^[6]

The Idaho Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case on January 5, 2012.^[7] Before the court, Loebs stated that, per the state constitution, counties can only be split if necessary to meet the federal one-person, one-vote requirement. Loebs said his plan split just five counties, showing that the other splits were unnecessary and made the map unconstitutional.

Idaho Deputy Attorney General Brian Kane argued that the redistricting commission had some discretion in the matter. "The goal should be: 'What is the best defensible plan?" he said.^[8]

In a 4-1 decision, the Idaho Supreme Court sided with Twin Falls, throwing out the map on January 18, 2012. The justices said they could not declare a map constitutional that split 12 of the state's 44 counties, more than was necessary to meet federal standards.

Secretary of State Ben Ysursa said he would reconvene the redistricting commission as soon as possible. Court officials said the decision rendered all other pending redistricting lawsuits moot.^[9]

November 2011: Northern counties lawsuit

In late November, seven North Idaho counties were said to be planning a second lawsuit to challenge the new legislative map. Attorney Christ Troupis explained these counties sought a different map than the one pushed for in the Twin Falls suit, "They would prefer to have a plan that doesn’t necessarily split the least number of counties, but effectively and appropriately represents the interests of all of its citizens and makes sure that nobody’s disenfranchised, and to do that, you have to split some counties.” The counties were Bonner, Boundary, Benewah, Lewis, Idaho, Shoshone, and Clearwater.^[10]

The suit was filed the second week in December by Troupis on behalf of the counties. It asked the court to adopt either the North Idaho portion of L-82, a plan drawn up by the first commission, or L-76, which divided only five counties. According to the complaint, the current plan, L-87, hurt the seven counties by creating oddly shaped districts.

Affidavits from Speaker of the House Lawerence Denney and Lou Espositio, a member of the first redistricting commission, criticized the second commission, with Denney stating his belief that the state Supreme Court was wrong to order a second commission. The suit also criticized the lawsuit brought by the state's four other counties, which argued that counties were unnecessarily split.^[11]

The case became moot when the state Supreme Court ruled the maps were invalid in the Twin Falls case on January 18, 2012.^[9]

References

See also: Redistricting in Illinois

Brady v. Madigan

Illinois GOP Chair Pat Brady and the state Republican Party filed a lawsuit on May 11, 2011, asking the Supreme Court to declare the redistricting process tiebreaking provision in violation of the state constitution. Additionally, the suit sought to stop the legislature from finishing redistricting until the court declared a ruling.

In the past, ties were broken by drawing a name from a hat. In 2011, however, Democrats had the numbers to pass a map without any Republicans. Brien Sheahan, general counsel for the Illinois GOP, said the suit was filed when Republicans began to see how Democrats were drawing the map. He stated, “The court could certainly supervise an expedited process that would be more open, more transparent, that would produce fairer districts.”^[1]

Oh June 15, the Illinois Supreme Court declined to hear the case.^[2]

Radogno v. Illinois State Board of Elections

Republican Senate leader Christine Radogno and House Republican leader Tom Cross filed a federal lawsuit on July 21, 2011, seeking to invalidate the legislative maps drawn by Democrats. They alleged the new maps unfairly targeted Republicans and violated the Voting Rights Act by discriminating against African-Americans and Hispanics, as well as violating the state constitution's compactness requirement.^[3][4]

According to the suit, "The bizarre shapes of several districts … is in furtherance of a deliberate attempt to enhance Democrats' prospects for re-election and target Republicans to prevent their re-election," while many districts "slither across traditional lines in order to place multiple incumbent Republicans into one district."^[5]

The case was to be heard by a three-judge panel in U.S. District Court. If successful, either parts or the whole of the map could have been redrawn.^[6]

In September, the organization African Americans for Legislative Redistricting asked to be added as a defendant to the case. The coalition of civil rights groups helped Democrats in drawing the new boundaries.^[7]

On December 7, a federal panel threw out the suit, dismissing charges of racial gerrymandering and dilution of Latino voting strength. Radogno issued a statement saying, "We will carefully review our options. Our goal of providing all Illinois citizens a fair opportunity to elect representatives of their choice for the next decade remains. The map crafted by the majority particularly weakens the ability of minority voters to exercise their voting rights. This opinion could further weaken their position."^[8]

Committee for a Fair and Balanced Map v. Ill. State Board of Elections

Illinois Republicans filed suit against the new Congressional districts in July 2011, arguing they violated Hispanic voting rights and were severely gerrymandered. In September, plaintiffs asked a federal court to force the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee to produce documents requested in a subpoena. They sought to discover what role the national Democratic Party played in drawing the new district lines.^[9]

An order issued by a three-judge federal court panel in October allowed Republicans to find out the identities of experts and consultants used by Democrats when redrawing the lines. The panel also ruled that lawmakers and their staff were immune from providing documents that were not based on objective facts.^[10] The decision stated, "Full public disclosure would hinder the ability of party leaders to synthesize competing interests of constituents, special interest groups and lawmakers, and draw a map that has enough support to become law. This type of legislative horse trading is an important and undeniable part of the legislative process."^[11]

November 2011: Republicans seek injunction

The Illinois Republican Party filed a request for a permanent Federal injunction on November 4, 2011, seeking to prevent the new Congressional districts from being implemented.^[12] Citing emails and other correspondence between Democratic state party leaders and national leaders, Republicans claimed they worked together to create a map favorable to Democrats. Republicans argued that the new map was unconstitutional as it was politically gerrymandered and diluted Latino representation.^[13]

Court hearings began on November 17 and ended the next day.^[14] The fate of the suit would be determined by three federal judges.^[15] On November 22, U.S. District Judge Joan Lefkow pushed back the filing deadline for candidates wishing to run for U.S. House to December 23–27. If the suit was not resolved by December 21, the deadline would be moved again.^[16]

December 2011: Map upheld

On December 15, 2011, the federal court panel hearing the case said they agreed with the Republican complaint that the map was politically motivated to increase Democratic congressional seats, but said Republicans did not present a workable standard for evaluating the claims. The court also rejected the argument that the map diluted Latino voting strength, stating Republicans failed to present enough evidence that the legislature intentionally sought to discriminate against Latinos.^[17]

With the suit resolved, candidate filing for congressional races began on December 23 and went through December 27.^[18] The original deadline had been December 5, but had to be moved back due to the then pending lawsuit.

League of Women Voters v. Quinn

The League of Women Voters of Illinois filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court against Gov. Pat Quinn on August 16, alleging the new legislative maps were not drawn fairly. President Jan Dorner said the maps should be drawn for the voters, not the parties.^[19]

The suit argued that Democrats violated the First Amendment by using partisan voting information to redraw district boundaries, stating, "The General Assembly and governor have unlawfully selected residents to speak, debate, assemble and vote in these districts based upon their political viewpoints and opinions, without safeguards against the misuse of such criteria to regulate or abridge First Amendment rights for partisan ends."^[20]

On October 28, 2011, the three-judge U.S. District Court panel dismissed the case.^[21]

Schmidt v State Board of Elections

The Illinois Green Party filed a lawsuit on October 24, 2011, seeking to retain its qualified party status in the U.S. House and state legislative districts where it received 5% of the vote in November 2010. Under state law, any party receiving at least 5% automatically qualifies for the next election in the district. However, the state argued that, due to redistricting, the qualified status did not apply.^[22]

References

See also: Redistricting in Indiana

February 2011: Annexation lawsuit

In the three years prior to redistricting, the city of Jeffersonville annexed several nearby neighborhoods. A resident of one such neighborhood, Bruce Herdt, sued the city over its drawing of city council districts in the newly added neighborhoods. The suit alleged that the city initially allotted too little representation to the neighborhoods by using 2000 census data. Herdt contended that 2010 census data corroborated his earlier estimates and substantiated his claims.^[1][2] Judge William G. Hussman dismissed the lawsuit, saying that the 2000 census data was the best data to use at the time. The city argued that the use of alternative estimates did not conform to state law or precedent. The city planned to redistrict again before municipal elections in 2015. Herdt planned to appeal.^[3]

References

See also: Redistricting in Kentucky

January 26, 2012: Lawmakers file suit challenging state legislative maps

On January 26, 2012, House Republicans filed a suit challenging the state House map. GOP lawmakers argued that the plan unnecessarily divided counties. On January 30, 2012, Senator Kathy Stein (D) joined the lawsuit, challenging the Senate redistricting plan. She contended that the changes to her district disenfranchised Lexington voters.^[1][2]

January 31, 2012: Judge postpones filing deadline

On January 31, 2012, a state circuit judge maps extended the filing deadline for candidates from January 31 to February 7.^[3]

February 7, 2012: Court tosses state legislative maps

On February 7, 2012, a Franklin Circuit Court ruled that Kentucky's new state legislative district maps were unconstitutional, finding that the districts exhibited unacceptable population disparities and divided too many counties, both violations of the Kentucky Constitution. The state planned to appeal the ruling to the Kentucky Supreme Court.^[4]

The circuit court's ruling can be accessed here.

The state appealed the decision, and the appeal was fast-tracked by the Kentucky Supreme Court.^[5]

February 24, 2012: State supreme court hears appeal, upholds circuit court ruling

On February 24, 2012, the Kentucky Supreme Court heard arguments in the appeal of the circuit court ruling that had overturned the state legislative district map.^[6][7]

Later that day, after hearing oral arguments, the Kentucky Supreme Court upheld the circuit court ruling. As a consequence of the state supreme court's ruling, 2012 elections were conducted under the state's existing legislative districts.^[8][9]

The state supreme court's order can be accessed here.

April and June 2013: New redistricting suits filed over state legislative maps

In April 2013, local officials and residents in northern Kentucky filed suit against the state and several state legislators, asking the court to impose a deadline of November 4, 2013, for the state legislature to approve new district maps.^[10] In June, five more residents of Kentucky asked a three-judge panel to draft new state's legislative districts. These residents claimed that the lack of new maps had left them without adequate representation.^[11]

June 20, 2013: Governor calls special session for redistricting

On June 20, 2013, Governor Steve Beshear (D) called for a special session of the legislature to consider redistricting. The special session was set to begin on August 19, 2013.^[12][13][14]

August 23, 2013: New state legislative maps adopted

Gov. Steve Beshear signed new state legislative district maps into law on August 23, 2013. The legislation was approved by a vote of 35 to 2 in the Senate and 79 to 18 in the House. The newly adopted maps were subject to approval by a three-judge federal panel tasked with overseeing the process.^[15][16]

November 2013: Federal court affirms legality of district maps

In November 2013, a federal court affirmed the legality of the newly adopted district maps.^[17]

References

See also: Redistricting in Louisiana

November 2011: Number of Congressional districts

Less than a month after winning re-election, Louisiana Attorney General Buddy Caldwell began a legal battle to keep Louisiana's seven congressional seats. Under new congressional district plan, a result of national redistricting based on the 2010 census, Louisiana has six seats in Congress - one fewer than it has had for the last 10 years.^[1]

On November 14, 2011, Caldwell's office filed a lawsuit with the U.S. Supreme Court, alleging the census "included illegal foreign nationals along with holders of guest-worker visas and student visas" in it's 2012 national population count. He explained "Louisiana's complaint simply asks the court to require the federal government to re-calculate the 2012 apportionment of U.S. House of Representatives seats based on legal residents, just as the U.S. Constitution requires."^[1]

September 2012: Lawsuit against Jindal

In late September 2012, Ron Ceasar, a candidate for US House of Representatives, filed suit against Gov. Bobby Jindal (R) for allegedly conspiring with the state Legislature to dilute minority voting strength in the congressional redistricting plan. The suit sought to temporarily stop the November 6, 2012 congressional elections in districts 3, 4, and 5.^[2]

According to the suit, “The governor of Louisiana, personally got involved in the reapportionment of these congressional districts due to conflict of interest for electing and re-electing white Republicans to office.” Jindal's executive council Elizabeth Murrill denounced the move, stating, “This is a frivolous lawsuit. The (U.S.) Justice Department already cleared this plan.”^[2]

References

See also: Redistricting in Maine

March 2011: Congressional map timeline

Maine's law required the state to wait until 2013 to redraw Congressional maps. Two citizens argued against this law since the data was already available. A lawsuit filed for them in federal court, Desena v. State of Maine, sought to have the timetable pushed forward.^[1][2]

While the state's Constitution required that maps for the state's House and Senate be drawn in 2013, the law mandating that Congressional maps be done at the same time was only a statute.

Central to the complaint was information in the Census indicating Maine's two Congressional districts, based on the lines used in the 2010 elections that would have remained as they were for the 2012 election if the law stood, were out of balance and could under-represent southern Mainers.

August 2011: Independent voter lawsuit

On August 22, 2011, independent voter Mike Turcotte filed a lawsuit that alleged the political parties had too much control over the map-drawing process. The suit said the ratio of unenrolled voters to political parties on the redistricting commission was unequal to that of the voter registration in Maine, thereby violating equal representation. The commission was made up of 15 members -- 14 of which were registered Democratic or Republican.

References

See also: Redistricting in Maryland

March 2011: Harford County lawsuit

In Harford County the Republican-controlled County Council ruled that the Democratic Party was a fringe party -- meaning it would not be allowed to participate in the redistricting process. In the previous election, Democrats only garnered 12 percent of the total votes, which was below the county-established 15 percent figure in order to be eligible to sit on the redistricting committee. Republicans argued that to make an exception for Democrats would open the door for third parties (Green Party, Libertarian Party, etc.) to file similar complaints.^[1][2]

On Thursday, March 10, 2011, Democrats filed suit, seeking to stop any recommendations of the redistricting committee from being considered. While Harford's Charter explicitly contains the 15% threshold to be considered a major party and to be eligible for sitting on advisory committees, Democrats said the meaning of the charter changed over time. They based part of their legal argument on the fact that, if only the election results for the City Council President were removed and the polling percentage of Democratic candidates were reweighted, they would have pulled in 21.5% of the vote and thus would have exceeded the threshold.^[3]

October 2011: Dilution of agricultural electorates

Maryland resident Howard Gorrell filed suit over the new congressional redistricting map in U.S. District Court on October 27, 2011, arguing that it unnecessarily diluted the "voting power of agriculture-related electorates" in the 6th Congressional District and was gerrymandered.^[4] The suit asked the court to assume jurisdiction and redraw the map.^[5]

On January 19, 2012, U.S. District Judge William D. Quarles dismissed the suit, ruling against all of Gorell's arguments.^[6]

November 2011: Civil rights lawsuit

On November 10, 2011, nine citizens filed a joint lawsuit in federal court, charging the state with civil rights violations as a result of the recently approved Congressional districts. The plaintiffs put forth four main arguments alleging civil rights violations: the 5th Congressional District should be a majority-minority voting district, Districts 4 and 7 should have a stronger black vote, Districts 2 and 3 were politically gerrymandered, and the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment was violated in Montgomery County.^[7]

The Maryland Republican Party supported the lawsuit. Chairman Alex Mooney said, “We join the Fannie Lou Hamer PAC, the Legacy Foundation, Marylanders for Fair and Coherent Representation, and citizens from across Maryland to reaffirm our belief that redistricting should not be done solely on partisanship or incumbent preference. We are eager to see the Governor’s map remedied so that the rights of all Marylanders, regardless of race, geography or political affiliation, are not denied.”^[8]

The lawsuit won an initial victory on November 21, when U.S. District Judge Roger Titus ruled the suit could be heard by a three-judge panel.^[9] On November 29, 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge William Traxler, Jr. announced a three-judge panel consisting of Judge Paul Niemeyer, Judge Alexander Williams and Judge Roger Titus to hear the case.^[10]

Arguments were presented before the court on December 20. That same day the Attorney General's office filed pleadings asking the court to issue an opinion by the end of the week. Maryland's primary was April 3, 2012, with the deadline for congressional candidates falling on January 11. Under federal law, overseas ballots had to be sent out by February 17. The start argued that a delayed ruling could have jeopardized the state’s ability to print up ballots in time.

On December 23, 2011, the panel dismissed the suit, stating that the plaintiffs failed to meet the burden of proof for any of their claims. In regard to the allegation that the map discriminated against African-Americans by failing to create a third majority Black district, the court said the residents of the additional proposed district were not shown to be a single community of interest.

Judge Paul Niemeyer wrote, "The crucial weakness in the plaintiffs' evidence is that it concerns residents of their proposed congressional district in general, and not minority residents specifically. In the absence of this kind of specific evidence, we may not accept bare assertions that the area's African-American residents share the same characteristics, needs and interests."^[11]

The panel also said plaintiffs failed to show the map was a partisan gerrymander.^[12] Representatives of the Fannie Lou Hamer Foundation Political Action Committee said they would take the case to the United States Supreme Court if they could find the resources.^[13] On January 20, 2012, the group filed a notice of appeal. Attorney Jason Torchinsky said the appeal focused on the law counting prisoners in their home districts, rather than where they are imprisoned. They did not appeal other arguments in the case, but planned to argue that all states should count population in the same manner for congressional reapportionment.^[14]

If they did not succeed in appealing, opponents of the approved plan said they might start a petition drive to put the issues before voters in a fall referendum.^[15]

November 2011: Frederick County Commissioner lawsuit

Frederick County Commissioner Paul Smith filed suit against the state's new congressional plan on November 22, 2011, alleging the state failed to design contiguous and compact voting areas. Smith filed the suit in the Maryland Court of Appeals and in Anne Arundel County Circuit Court, hoping for an expedited ruling. Under the approved map Frederick County was divided into two congressional districts - something that had not happened for 200 years.^[16]

The Maryland Court of Appeals rejected the case on procedural grounds on January 10, 2012.^[17]

November 2012: Referendum

A referendum petition to overturn Maryland's congressional redistricting plan passed in October 2011 was on the November 6, 2012 ballot. Del. Justin Ready announced on March 27, 2012, that the referendum would move forward with collecting signatures. In order to qualify for the ballot supporters were required to collect a minimum of 55,736 valid signatures before June 1.

Under the new map, the number of Carroll County delegates was reduced from four to three. Ready said, "The map, which passed in October, takes Carroll County out of its traditional pairing with Western Maryland and splits us into two congressional districts. So, Taneytown is in the same district as Ocean City and Westminster is connected to Silver Spring in a district that is shaped like the country of Thailand."^[18]

The referendum was certified for the ballot in July and on July 26 the Maryland Democratic Party filed a lawsuit seeking to overturn the petition drive. Many of the signatures were collected through an online process that automatically filled in most of the information required on petitions. According to the suit, this process violated the law by filling out petitions with voter information. It also argued that at least 5,000 signatures that were certified as valid were in fact invalid. Striking these signatures would bring the total number below the required number to get the issue on the ballot.^[19]

References

See also: Redistricting in Michigan

December 2011: Coalition challenges State House maps

The Michigan State Legislative Black Caucus, the NAACP, the United Auto Workers, and Latino Americans for Social and Economic Development joined a lawsuit to challenge Michigan's redrawn State House districts. In the suit filed on December 8, 2011, the groups argued that the new maps would result in a 50 percent reduction in the number of minority representatives by weakening minority districts and pairing incumbents. Much of the criticism was focused on the Detroit area. A spokesperson for Gov. Rick Snyder (R), named in the lawsuit, defended the plans calling them legal and fair.^[1]

On March 23, 2012, a three-judge panel dismissed the challenge.^[2]

May 2011: Warren City Council lawsuit

In May 2011, two candidates for an at-large seat in Warren challenged the validity of an initiative placed on the November ballot. The item, circulated as a petition, was officially an initiative to place the city's redistricting plan on the fall ballot. According to the plaintiffs, Eugene Sawyer and Dean Berry, it also improperly included language to reduce Warren's council from nine seats to seven and to make five of the seats into districts office, leaving a single pair of at-large positions.

Saying that people may not have realized they were signing in support of that plan, Sawyer and Berry, representing a group called Warren Citizens Guarding Government, asked for a restraining order to keep the initiative off the ballot. The current city council had already tabled the redistricting plan.^[3]

The two men argued that the proposed map of districts disproportionately favored the wealthier northern half of the city, and that the map reflected an effort by existing office holders to entrench their positions. The sitting mayor, Jim Fouts, countered that the initiative passed and was set for the fall election months earlier, questioning why anyone would let so much time pass before challenging the language of the petition.

The suit was filed on the eve of the deadline to announce a candidacy for any of the city's offices. Berry said the group had hoped the Warren Council would hire attorneys to seek a court order on who should draw the new districts. Both men also admitted they signed the petition they challenged, claiming they were tricked by the language. A representative of the Tea Party-affiliated group that circulated the measure said the effort was attempting to cut government costs and represented no effort to distribute power to certain groups.^[4]

June 2011: Oakland County lawsuit

Former Sen. Mike Bishop (R), County Commissioner David Potts (R), and residents Janice Daniels and Mary Kathryn Decuir filed a lawsuit on June 20, 2011, against the Oakland County Apportionment Commission. According to the plaintiffs, the commission deliberated for only 34 minutes before passing the proposal. In addition, the suit alleged that new districts were not sufficiently compact, divided communities of interest, reflected partisan motivations, and packed minorities into majority-minority districts.^[5]

On November 16, 2011, the Michigan Court of Appeals upheld the Oakland County Commission redistricting plan. The court found that the lines were legally permissible, meeting requirements for compactness, fair allocation of political power, and the protection of minority voting rights. At least one plaintiff, Potts, expressed an interest in appealing the decision.^[6]

After local Republicans lost their legal challenge to Oakland County's redistricting maps, state lawmakers passed a law stripping the bipartisan committee of its redistricting authority and giving the power to the Board of Commissioners. On January 4, 2012, Democrats sued to block the law, arguing that it violated the separation of powers. Republicans defended the law as a cost-saving measure for the county.^[7]

References

See also: Redistricting in Minnesota

January 2011: Democrats file suit

On January 12, 2011, four Democrats filed suit in federal court over Minnesota redistricting.^[1][2] Attorneys for the plaintiffs raised concerns over whether politicians can draw the lines in a fair manner.^[1] The lawsuit asked the court to invalidate the current political boundaries and require leaders to submit their redistricting plans to the court.^[2] The lawsuit was initially postponed while legislators worked on a plan. Following Gov. Dayton's veto of the legislature's proposed maps, the case resumed. Republican attorneys argued that the case should first pass through the state courts before federal courts intervene.^[3]

January 2011: Republican file suit

Several Republicans filed a redistricting lawsuit on January 21, 2011, in state court.^[4]

References

See also: Redistricting in Mississippi

March 2011: NAACP state lawsuit

The NAACP filed Mississippi's first 2011 redistricting lawsuit on March 1, 2011, in an effort to push the qualifying deadline for candidates in the 2011 off-year elections back 90 days to June 1.^[1] Such a move would provide the 12 counties named in the lawsuit with time to draw county-level district boundaries.^[2]

March 2011: NAACP federal lawsuit

In response to the failure to pass a House plan, the NAACP filed Mississippi's first federal lawsuit on March 17, 2011.^[3] Representing the NAACP and three other plaintiffs was Hazelhurst-based attorney Carol Rhodes, along with one of the lead plaintiffs from a 1991 lawsuit.^[4] Hours before Rhodes brought suit, the Mississippi State Senate had voted 29-18 to invite conference from the House.^[5] Speaking to media, Rhodes echoed House Speaker's McCoy central argument, that the tradition of each house signing off on the other's map is itself reason enough for the Senate to acquiesce to the House map.^[6]

Named as defendants were the Governor (who sent an open letter to legislative Republicans urging them to fight McCoy's bill), Attorney General, and Mississippi Secretary of State, along with election commission officials. On top of seeking the removal of redistricting to the courts, the NAACP wanted an immediate restraining order to prevent any other plan from being implemented. Southern District U.S. District Judge Dan Jordan, a George W. Bush appointee, was originally set to hear the case, ultimately ruling on the NAACP petition to have a federal judge take over the entire redrawing process. The NAACP also indicated it would have its own maps ready to submit to the court within days of filing.

The lawsuit came as Speaker William McCoy told media, "We're going to the Justice Department. We have nothing further to talk about with the Senate."^[7] McCoy also said he already has attorneys for the House working on a way to bypass the Senate and send his map directly to the Justice Department.

On Monday, March 21, House leaders voted to join the lawsuit, with Tommy Reynolds and his House Apportionment and Elections Committee voting 10-4 along party lines to join..^[8]

The following week, Senate Democrats fell in line, voting in their Caucus to join the lawsuit.^[9]

The lawsuit had been moved to a new judge after Daniel Jordan recused himself when a family member filed to run for the state legislature.^[10][11] Named to replace him was Carlton Reeves. Notably, Reeves was the lead attorney for the state's Democratic Party in the aftermath of the 2000 Census, which that caused Republicans to immediately call for the new judge to recuse himself.^[12][13]

Governor Haley Barbour released a public statement saying he was playing no official or unofficial role in redistricting, and that his sole objection to the legislative plans was over a failure to consider population growth in some counties.^[14]

Secretary of State Delbert Hosemann filed papers in federal court on April 1 asking a federal judge to dismiss to NAACP case, arguing that the Mississippi Constitution allowed the state to wait until 2012 to complete redistricting.^[15] The state Republican Party partially backed Hosemann in an April 8 brief, which conceded the court had jurisdiction to hear the case but asked that Hosemann's argument, based on Section 254 of the state's Constitution, be given full consideration.^[16]

On April 11, Reeves recused himself.^[17]

Tom Lee became the third judge to preside over the case. Lee, a 1984 appointee under Ronald Reagan, was on the 1991 panel that ordered Mississippi to hold back-to-back elections.^[18]

In recusing himself, Reeves cited not his previous work as an attorney for Democrats in redistricting but his own lifetime NAACP membership and the need to maintain an appearance of impartiality, saying, "a reasonable suspicion of partiality is too great a possibility to risk." He also stressed that he had no financial interest in the NAACP and had not held any actual office in the organization since heading his college chapter a quarter century earlier.^[19]

Hosemann and Bryant backed a special session in 2012, interpreting the state Constitution to allow and even mandate that.

The state's Republican Party, however, came out in favor on allowing the judicial action to proceed. Attorney General Jim Hood drafted an open response to Hosemann, saying running under current boundaries after Census data were available would violate federal law, and that two elections would be an unacceptable waste of money.

Rhodes challenged Bryant's take on the Constitution, saying, "The Constitution says the Legislature may redistrict at any time, which they did, February through March." Through Rhodes, the NAACP asked the court to order the Attorney General to submit the maps, including the technically unapproved House map, to the Justice Department.

On June 7, the NAACP filed notice that it would take its suit to the U.S. Supreme Court. The organization argued that the 2011 elections should be blocked because district populations were unbalanced.^[20]

April 2011: Federal court panel

The legislative failure to settle on maps left the process in the hands of a panel of three federal judges. In addition to Tom Lee, also presiding over NAACP v. Haley Barbour et al, sat on the panel. Joining him were Grady Jolly and Louis Guirola. Jolly and Lee were both Reagan appointees and Guirola was named to the bench by George W. Bush.

All three judges were named by Chief Justice of the 5th Circuit Court, Edith Jones.^[21]

Senator Terry Burton filed a motion asking for Senate candidates to be allowed to run under the new map, which did pass both maps, leaving only the contested House map up to the court.^[22]

Judge Lee ordered all parties involved in the lawsuit to appear before him on April 22.^[23] At the same time, Barbour had expressed continued willingness to recall legislators and some leaders were working on a compromise. After the day's hearing, Judge Lee offered no immediate indication of his ruling.^[24]

At that status hearing, Robert McDuff, attorney for the House Republicans, and Democratic Attorney General Jim Hood both argued for placeholder elections in 2011; McDuff pressed for special elections under new maps in 2012 while Hood suggested drawing new maps for use in 2015 or even 2019. Hood added that paying for two elections would ultimately cost taxpayers less than paying for a protracted court battle.^[25] By the day of the hearing, the state had already covered $200,000 in legal costs.

Two other options were put forward; first, to approve the contested maps on an interim basis, a position primarily supported by Democrats, and secondly to turn the project over to an expert, a special master, something sought by the state's Republican Party and by Gov. Barbour.^[26][27] Hosemann proposed doing nothing at all judicially and allowing the legislature to resume the matter in 2012.^[28][29]

The first hint of where the panel might come down was a statement issued on April 29 saying the judges were inclined to issue an order compelling Mississippi to hold its 2011 elections under the maps each chamber had created for its own districts.^[30] Such a ruling was explained as the best possible interim solution given that all parties agreed the existing maps were inadequate and given the looming June 1, 2011 qualifying deadline for primaries.

That same wee, Hosemann reiterated his preference for allowing the legislature to resume the task in 2012 in an open editorial.^[31] In part, he said, "The decision does not pass constitutional muster, is short-sighted and sets a bad precedent for future redistricting."^[32]

The court, meanwhile, wanted an interim plan in place by June.^[33][34]

The second hearing was set for May 10 and had a May 5 deadline to submit evidence. Republicans continued to push for maps drawn by an outside expert.^[35]

Immediately after the hearing, the panel released no decision.^[36] The court, while working on its ruling, continued to stress that it would minimize intrusion into state politics.^[37]

The ruling was handed down on May 16.^[38] The judges gave the state two choices.^[39] The ruling stipulated that any new maps would have to earn pre-clearance from the Justice Department by June 1. It also specifically said the legislature could craft new maps in their 2012 session.^[40] The ruling also affected county-level elections.^[41] Attorney General Jim Hood was also ordered to act as a liaison and keep the panel apprised of the legislature's progress going forward.

In ruling, the panel noted they had indeed changed their position from the aftermath of the first hearing, when they publicly shared that they were inclined to order elections be held under the newly drawn but not passed maps. In part, they said:

"We observe that our order seems to comport with everyone's 'second choice.' That — perhaps irrelevant — point aside, we are certain that it is the most respectful of all proposals to the principles of federalism, to the unchallenged laws of the State of Mississippi, to the holdings of the Supreme Court of the United States, and to the proper placement of responsibility for reapportionment — the Legislature of the State of Mississippi."

Lt. Gov. Bryant, Secretary of State Hosemann, State Treasurer Tate Reeves, and Sen. Billy Hewes publicly supported the decision.^[42]

The practical implication of the decision was, first, a special session sometime in late 2011 to address legislative districts and the state's four Congressional seats.^[43] Constitutionally, the legislature was allowed to address redistricting anytime before the end of 2012.^[44]

The ruling allowed 2011 elections to go forward but did not settle what would happen in 2012 or after. The panel reserved the privilege of deciding if a special election would be held in 2012, though it was also possible someone would bring a lawsuit seeking to force just such an outcome.^[45]

June 2011: NAACP appeal

On June 7, 2011, Mississippi's NAACP filed notice of its intention to appeal the decision before the U.S. Supreme Court.^[46]

In October 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the lower court ruling that old districts could be used in 2011 elections.^[47]

In October 2012, the state NAACP filed a federal lawsuit asking for the results of the 2011 election to be thrown out, and for special elections to be held under a court-drawn map. Lower courts ruled against the NAACP, and on May 20, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the ruling without comment.^[48][49]

References

See also: Redistricting in Missouri

September 2011: Democrats sue to block map

On September 23, 2011, a group of Democrats filed suit to block Missouri's new congressional districts, calling the plan overreaching and egregious. The group was supported by the National Democratic Redistricting Trust. The lawsuit argued that the districts were neither compact nor contiguous and that they unnecessarily divided and diluted voters in St. Louis and Jefferson County. State Party Chair Matt Teter said that he only learned of the suit the day it was filed. Teter said that he supported the idea of a court-drawn plan.^[1][2]

• See lawsuit petition here. (dead link)
• Listen to an interview with the plaintiff's attorney here.

The Missouri Attorney General's office asked the court to dismiss the lawsuit. The AG's filing contended that the plaintiffs failed to show that lawmakers ignored the compactness criterion or lacked a rational basis for drawing districts as they did.^[3]

A group of Kansas City Republicans also challenged the congressional map arguing that the lines, especially those for District 5, were drawn for the sole purpose of protecting incumbents.^[4]

December 2011: Judges' maps faces questions as lawsuits face dismissal

Less than a week after the judicial redistricting panel approved new legislative districts, there was speculation that the new lines may be challenged. Critics pointed to several county splits that they contended were not required by county population figures. The Missouri Constitution mandates that "no county lines shall be crossed except when necessary to add sufficient population to a multi-district county or city."^[5]

December 2011: Lawsuits dismissed, appeal filed

On December 13, 2011, just days after a judge dismissed two lawsuits against Missouri's congressional map, plaintiffs in the Democratic lawsuit filed an appeal with the Missouri Supreme Court. The other challenge, filed by Kansas City Republicans, was also dismissed but was not appealed.^[6]

January 2012: Judicial maps challenged, Supreme Court to hear lawsuits

On January 4, 2012, attorney David Brown of Columbia filed suit against Missouri's State Senate redistricting plan. Despite revisions to the court-drawn plan, Brown argued that the map still inappropriately divided counties and, due to staggered Senate elections, would leave at least one district without representation until 2014. He also maintains that the court had no authority to revise its redistricting map after giving it final approval.

• Brown's petition can be found here.

January 2012: Senate maps overturned, other lawsuits continue

On January 17, 2012, the Missouri Supreme Court overturned the state's Senate redistricting maps. The court found that the Senate plan unconstitutionally divided counties. The court also addressed two lawsuits concerning Missouri's new congressional districts, ordering a lower court to review the maps for compactness -- the lower court had initially rejected the lawsuits without considering the question.^[7][8]

A lawsuit was filed against the new state House plans with the Supreme Court. The court declined to hear the case and directed plaintiffs to file the case in state circuit court. The lawsuit was re-filed in circuit court on January 27, 2012.^[9] A new 10-member redistricting committee, composed of residents, would be appointed by the Governor to redraw the Senate maps. It was unclear if the revision process would be completed in time for the February 28 candidate filing deadline.^[10]

February 2012: Congressional maps upheld

On February 3, 2012, a Missouri Circuit Court judge upheld the state's congressional redistricting plan. The judge had previously dismissed the lawsuit, but was ordered by the Missouri Supreme Court to consider the case on the merits. The plaintiffs were expected to appeal to the state State Supreme court. They argued that the maps violate the Missouri Constitution's compactness requirement. Rep. Russ Carnahan (D) expressed support for the lawsuit, presumably hoping to restore his former district eliminated under the map.^[11]

February 2012: Cases move forward, filing to be delayed

On February 16, 2012, the Missouri Supreme Court heard arguments in the legal challenge of the state's congressional districts. Meanwhile, a county circuit judge upheld Missouri's state House districts. This case too was expected to be appealed. In light of these legal challenges, the Missouri State Senate voted to delay the beginning of the filing period for state candidates from February 28 until March 27. The bill moved to the House.^[12][13][14]

February 2012: Supreme Court considers house plans

On February 27, 2012, the Missouri Supreme Court heard arguments in a lawsuit challenging the new state House maps. The House maps were already upheld by a lower court, but so were the State Senate maps prior to their rejection by the state Supreme Court. The House maps were drawn by a panel of judges.^[15]

March 2012: State House maps upheld

On March 27, 2012, the Missouri Supreme Court upheld the state's House of Representatives maps.^[16] On May 25, the Missouri Supreme Court issued an opinion elaborating on its approval of the state House districts.^[17]

• The state House ruling can be found here.

March 2012: Lawsuit filed against revised Senate maps

On March 2, 2012, a federal lawsuit was filed challenging Missouri's tentative Senate redistricting maps. The maps in question were a revision of earlier maps already struck down by state courts. The lawsuit argued that the revised maps discriminated against rural areas by placing too many voters in several rural districts, thus reducing the number of districts allotted to rural Missouri.

The lawsuit also contended that changes to district numbering would disenfranchise voters by making them wait longer to vote in the state's staggered Senate elections. Only half of Missouri's senators are up for election at each biennial election--odd numbers in 2012, evens in 2014. As a result, some voters who had already waited four years to elect senators might be forced to wait another two if they were moved from an odd-numbered to an even-numbered district.^[18]

On March 12, Missouri's bipartisan redistricting commission approved a new redistricting plan for the state Senate. The plan included a few adjustments from the preliminary map. The first maps had angered St. Louis area Republicans and drawn a lawsuit over the population balance between urban and rural districts. The final plan tweaked the St. Louis districts and evened population disparities across the state. The lawsuit was dropped in response to the modifications.^[19]

May 2012: Supreme Court upholds U.S. House plan

On May 25, the Missouri Supreme Court upheld the state's new congressional districts. The map paired Reps. William Lacy Clay (D) and Russ Carnahan (D). Plaintiffs argued that the maps violated the Missouri Constitution's compactness requirement.^[20]

• The congressional ruling can be found here.

References

See also: Redistricting in Nevada

June 2011: Legislature's failure to finish maps

On June 22, 2011, Judge James Todd Russell met with both Democratic and Republican lawyers to discuss the redistricting lawsuits.^[1]

Nevada First Judicial District Court Judge James Russell ruled on July 12, 2011 that a special panel would be charged with completing the redistricting process in Nevada.^[2] Russell said he would like to see the panel restricted to only 3 or 4 people.^[3]

Russell gave lawyers until July 20 to propose panel members. The panel of special masters would then oversee the final map-drawing process.^[4] Judge Russell suggested that using county voter registrars could be a way to remove the political nature of the maps. Governor Brian Sandoval (R) commended that idea and suggested Scott Wasserman -- chief executive officer and special counsel to regents -- as a backup option if the registrars did not agree to the process.^[5]

July 2011: New panel

On July 20, 2011, Secretary of State Ross Miller submitted a list of possible candidates for the panel to Judge James Todd Russell. The motion with the list of names also contained reference to the possibility that the judge could force the Governor to call a special session. In particular, a prior example was referenced from 1965, when the court ordered the governor to declare a special session to create a new redistricting plan.^[6]

Meanwhile, lawyers from both parties requested that the court decide whether Nevada qualified for a majority-minority Congressional seat due to the large Hispanic population in the state. Democrats contended that creating a majority-minority district would dilute Latino influence. Republicans contended that the requirements of the Voting Rights Act mandated that a majority-minority district be created because of the population percentages.^[7]

September 2011: Court hearing

A three-hour court hearing was held on September 21, 2011 to provide more guidance to the court-appointed panel that took on the role of drawing congressional and state legislative districts. Judge James Russell said he wanted to approve a new redistricting plan by November 16, 2011. In the court hearing, Democratic lawyers argued against the need for majority-minority Hispanic districts.^[8]

It was also announced that there would be two public hearings held on October 10 and October 11, at which time citizens could weigh in on possible maps.^[9]

The next court hearing was on November 15 or 16, when Judge Russell would either adopt new maps or send them back to the panel for changes.^[10]

October 2011: State Supreme Court intervened

In October 2011, Nevada Secretary of State Ross Miller asked the State Supreme Court to force the lower court to have a greater say in the process. At the time District Court Judge James Todd Russell appointed a panel of three masters to draw the maps before an October 21 deadline. But Miller contended that Russell did not provide sufficient guidance in the process and did not rule on questions submitted by both Democrats and Republicans. The primary question at hand was how the Voting Rights Act should be interpreted with respect to the number of majority-minority Congressional districts.^[11]

On October 5, 2011, the State Supreme Court announced it would hear arguments in the redistricting case on November 14, 2011.^[12]

October 2011: Special masters hearings

In October 2011, the three-member special masters panel held hearings regarding the drawing of the districts. Democratic Party lawyers argued that Nevada had a history of electing Hispanics, and thus there was less of a requirement to draw strict majority-minority districts to ensure minorities have a chance at election. Meanwhile, Republican attorneys testified that majority-minority districts were needed because of white voter bias. The main issue of disagreement centered around whether one of the four Congressional districts and 12 of the 63 state legislative districts should be majority-minority.^[13]

Meanwhile, on October 12, 2011, special master Tom Sheets asked the two parties to resolve their differences, suggesting that was a better option than the panel drawing the new maps. "You can make the special masters irrelevant if you choose to," Sheets said.^[14]

DEcember 2011: No challenges

There were no challenges filed against the new maps passed by the special masters panel.^[15]

References

See also: Redistricting in New Jersey

See also: Redistricting lawsuits relating to the 2010 Census

April 2011: Bayshore Tea Party suit

On April 21, 2011, the Bayshore Tea Party filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the new state legislative districts. The suit was joined by 38 other plaintiffs from 21 counties. The central allegation was that southern districts were generally larger than legislative districts in the northern part of New Jersey.^[1] Also, the splitting of Newark and Jersey City from three districts to two was said to be unconstitutional in the lawsuit.^[2]

On August 31, 2011, that lawsuit was thrown out by Judge Linda Feinberg. In her 80-page ruling, Feinberg said the math used by the Tea Party group was flawed.^[3]

References

See also: Redistricting in New Mexico

September 2011: State legislative lawsuits

In late September 2011, the New Mexico legislature adjourned a special session after approving state legislative maps but without sending a Congressional map to the Governor. With Governor Susana Martinez (R) likely to veto the state maps, several lawsuits were filed at the end of September 2011 asking the courts to step in.^[1]

• Democrats, including state representative Brian Egolf, filed suit in Santa Fe.^[2]
• Republicans, including state representative Donald Bratton, filed a suit in Lovington. Another set of Republicans filed a suit in state district court in Albuquerque^[3]
• Initially, four judges in three different courts were assigned to lawsuits^[4]

On September 29, 2011, Egolf requested that the State Supreme Court consolidate all redistricting cases in a district court in Santa Fe and then appoint one judge to preside over the cases.^[5]

The lawsuits all requested the court to re-draw the 70 state house and 42 state senate districts, which was also what happened after the 2001 redistricting process failed to produce legislatively-approved maps.^[6]

In October 2011 the legislature authorized the hiring of lawyers to defend the maps in court. GOP leaders were advocating for two sets of lawyers -- one for the Democrats, who passed the maps, and another for Republicans, who largely opposed them. The three lawyers hired were the same group of individuals who defended the legislature after lawsuits following the 2001 redistricting process. They were set to receive $260/hour for their work.^[7]

On October 12, 2011, the New Mexico Supreme Court consolidated the redistricting lawsuits and named a retired judge to preside over the case. All lawsuits going forward were be consolidated into the case as well, which was handled by retired judge James Hall.^[8]

October 2011: Trial dates

The retired judge handling the redistricting lawsuits in New Mexico -- James Hall -- set the timeline for court hearings about the four disputed maps (Congressional, State Senate, State House, and Public Regulation Commission). The dates were:^[9]

• December 5-8: Congressional map
• December 12-15 and December 19-21: State House map
• January 3-6 and January 9-10: State Senate map
• January 11-13: Public Regulation Commission map

October 2011: Special master

On October 25, 2011, District Judge James Hall rejected a proposal by Governor Susana Martinez to use a special master to draw new redistricting maps in New Mexico. The GOP favored this process while Democrats were opposed. Redistricting trials began in December and concluded in January.^[10]

At the end of November 2011, the court told lawyers for Governor of New Mexico Susana Martinez and Republicans that they could obtain emails, notes and other correspondences relating to the redistricting process that involved consultant Brian Sanderoff and legislators. Democratic legislative leaders had contended that such communication would be confidential and protected under state law.^[11]

District Judge James Hall said that because Sanaderoff would be a witness, the privilege of confidentiality was waived.^[11]

December 2011: Trials began

Congressional redistricting

A trial regarding the new congressional map for the three districts in New Mexico started and concluded the first week of December 2011. District Judge James Hall said he hoped to make a decision before December 21. Hall heard testimony that predominantly centered on whether a majority-minority Hispanic district should be created in the southern portion of the state.^[12]

December 2011: Map adopted

On December 29, 2011, District Judge James Hall adopted a new map for New Mexico’s three congressional districts. The plan -- which had received bipartisan support including from Governor Susana Martinez -- made the fewest possible changes to the existing boundaries.^[13]

January 2012: House map adopted

The new map, approved on January 3, 2012, paired two incumbent Democrats and two incumbent Republicans. Bob Wooley and Dennis Kintigh were placed in the same district, while Al Park and Jimmie Hall were combined into an Albuquerque-based district. There were six majority-minority districts for Native Americans. ^[14][15]

February 2012: Additional challenge

A group of Democrats and minority voters challenged the court-drawn map. The State Supreme Court held a hearing on February 7, 2012 to hear the suit.^[16] The State Supreme Court heard arguments in a lawsuit regarding the court-drawn map for the New Mexico House of Representatives. The hearing lasted about two hours, and judges said they would issue an order soon -- however, no actual deadline was announced. Democrats said that the new map did not adequately protect minority voting interests.^[17]

On February 10, the New Mexico Supreme Court rejected a court-drawn state House map. The new configurations were drawn by retired judge James Hall, who had been appointed by the Supreme Court. On February 13, Republicans filed a formal complaint in federal court stemming from the Supreme Court's ruling. The complaint called for a three-judge panel to overturn the state court's decision.^[18][19]

• See here for the full complaint filed by Republicans
• See here (dead link) for the Supreme Court's ruling

Three federal judges were named to oversee the lawsuit. The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals appointed appellate judges Harris Hartz Bruce Black, and William Johnson to hear the case. The filing deadline for state legislative candidates was scheduled for March 20 -- however, that date would have been jeopardized if no new map was completed in time.^[20]

During the week of February 24, Judge Hall released new maps. Hall altered the map to comply with the high court's directives. One proposal paired current House speaker Ben Lujan Sr. with fellow Democrat Nick Salazar, though Lujan did not run for re-election. The other proposal paired Salazar with Thomas Garcia. The proposals can be seen here and here.^[21]

On February 29, 2012, Democrats and Republicans came to an agreement on a court-ordered map.^[22]

January 2012: Senate map

A new bipartisan plan emerged for New Mexico State Senate districts -- and it was presented to the state court on January 11, 2012 for consideration. Lawyers for the Democratic-controlled state legislature opposed the maps, which were promoted by Governor Susana Martinez (R), state legislative Republicans, a group of Democrats, and Native Americans. The plan combined Republicans Rod Adair and William Burt into one district. Democratic incumbents Gerald Ortiz y Pino and Eric Griego were also in one district. However, Griego already declared as a candidate for a U.S. House seat.^[23]

January 2012: Senate map adopted

The judge adopted the map on January 16, 2012. Two Democratic incumbents were paired together as well as two incumbent Republicans.^[24]

July 2012: Total cost

On July 30, 2012, District Judge James Hall ruled that taxpayers would be responsible for paying attorneys' fees for those who represented Democratic, Republican, Native American, and Hispanic voter interests in the redistricting trials - a sum that amounted to nearly $3 million. Gov. Martinez suggested the legislature pay the fees for Democratic-leaning groups, while the executive branch should pay for Navajos and Republican interests. Hall rejected this notion, stating, "the request itself only reaffirms the 'us-versus-them' mentality which pervades our present political environment."^[25]

Following this decision, an analysis by the Associated Press found the total cost to taxpayers for the redistricting process came to nearly $8 million. This reignited the call by some for the creation of a nonpartisan commission to handle the once a decade process.^[26]

References

See also: Redistricting in New York

April 2011: Prison-based redistricting lawsuit

A number of Senate Republicans filed suit on April 4, 2011 against the Task Force on Demographic Research and Reapportionment and the state Department of Correctional Services for plans to count prisoners at their previous residence. Calling the law unconstitutional, the suit said the U.S. Census does not allow for prisoners to be counted in such a manner. Those filing the suit included Sens. Stephen Saland, Joseph Griffo, and Thomas O'Mara, all of whom had prisons in their districts.^[1]

The case brief stated:

[The law] exacerbates vote dilution of certain communities and enhances the voting power of other communities by the fictitious movement of a phantom population of almost 58,000 non-voting prisoners into residents already occupied by others, and from upstate Republicans districts to downstate New York City Democratic districts which constitutes political gerrymandering.^[2]

Read the full complaint.

Assemblyman Hakeem Jeffries, who sponsored the original legislation, called the suit baseless, saying, “The constitutional concerns raised in the lawsuit are unfounded and are simply designed to mask a naked attempt to maintain political power.”^[3] State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman was also an original sponsor of the legislation when he was serving in the state Senate.

Additionally, Common Cause/NY, Demos, and the Prison Policy Initiative all expressed objections to the lawsuit.^[4] Brenda Wright, Director of the Democracy Program at Demos, called for the suit to be dismissed, saying “The miscount of incarcerated individuals called for in the lawsuit violates the fundamental one-person, one vote principle of our democracy and contradicts the New York Constitution, which clearly states that a prison is not a residence. The plaintiffs here are wrong on the facts and wrong on the law."^[5]

Despite the U.S. Census Bureau using prison population when making its counts, the practice is illegal under New York State law. Article II, Section 4 of the New York Constitution states that redistricting prison populations is unlawful because, "no person shall he deemed to have gained or lost a residence...while confined in any public prison.”^[6]. Also, Section 5-104 of the New York State election laws make it illegal for prison populations to be used for redistricting, using the same language as the Constitutional law^[6].

Assemblyman Kenneth Blankenbush (R), in arguing against the law, explained, "They're residing in the prisons. That's where they're using our water, our sewer, our electric. My opinion is that this is a political ploy for downstate to again beef up the numbers downstate."^[7] Democrats said that the renewed interest by the GOP is just another distraction by Republicans to avoid redistricting reform.

In March 2011, the Federal Bureau of Prisons denied Maryland's request for prior residence information on prisoners, citing privacy protections. Despite the state's new law, this forcedMaryland to count the prisoners in the district with the prison. To that end, New York could be denied approval as well.^[8]

A coalition of activist groups filed a motion asking the New York Supreme Court to intervene on May 17, 2011.^[9] The full press release from the NAACP's Legal Defense Fund is available here.

Assembly Speaker Silver's office said, "We believe the statute is constitutional and will be upheld."^[10]

On May 27, 2011, a trio of activist groups requested the court's permission to join the case on the defendants' side.^[11] In part, the petition submitted by the NAACP New York State Conference, Voices of Community Activists and Leaders, and Common Cause of New York, asserted that the named defendants could not adequately represent the interests before them.

August 2011: Individuals join lawsuit

In August 2011, New York State Supreme Court Justice Eugene Devine said a group of 15 individuals could the lawsuit. However, Devine said three advocacy groups -- NAACP New York State Conference, Voices of Community Activists and Leaders-New York, and Common Cause of New York -- could not.^[12]

In mid-August, the individuals filed a motion for summary judgment, asking a judge to throw out the original lawsuit brought by the senators, saying that counting prisoners where they are incarcerated inflated the political influence of districts with prisons.^[13]

August 2011: LATFOR to follow law

While the Senate Republicans continued their lawsuit to overturn the law in August 2011, they agreed to count prisoners in their own home location.^[14]

October 2011: Arguments presented in court

On October 4, 2011, lawyers for the Republicans who filed suit over prison-based redistricting presented their arguments before New York Supreme Court Justice Eugene Devine, arguing that the law violates the constitution because it creates two census counts.

Lawyers for the defense argued that the Census allows for state and local governments to define where prisoners are counted. Stephen Kerwin, a lawyer in the Attorney General's office, said, "If the Census does not provide the information, than the Census does not control, and it does not make prison gerrymandering a requirement."^[15]

December 2011: Case thrown out

Devine threw out the case on December 2, 2011, upholding the law that prisoners must be counted at their last known home address. "Though inmates may be physically found in locations of their respective correctional facilities at the time the census is conducted, there is nothing in the record to indicate that such inmates have any actual permanency in these locations or have an intent to remain," he wrote.^[16]

New York Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman called the decision "a victory for fundamental fairness and equal representation.”^[17]

On January 10, 2012, LATFOR agreed to count prisoners as residents of their home districts.^[18] Republicans initially sought to appeal the ruling, but dropped it on February 24.^[19]

Favors, et al. v. Cuomo, et al

A group of civic leaders filed a lawsuit on November 17, 2011, asking that a three-judge panel appoint a special master to oversee the drawing of new congressional and legislative districts. The process, they argued, was “an exercise in partisan self-dealing and incumbent protection” that could hurt elections in 2012.^[20] The suit named Governor Andrew Cuomo, Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, Senate and Assembly leaders, and LATFOR as defendants.^[21]

Richard Mancino, lead counsel for the plaintiffs, said, "The system is out of time. The system is broken. It doesn’t seem likely that the system will correct itself, at least not when it’s being handled by very partisan people in Albany.”^[22]

December 2011: AALDEF files to join suit

On December 28, 2011, the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund filed a complaint on behalf of four New York residents, seeking to add them to the suit. The complaint argued for equal representation for Asian-Americans in the new districts when they were drawn. According to AALDEF, the lines split the largest Asian-American neighborhoods in New York City into different districts, reducing their voting power.^[23]

February 2012: Three-judge panel appointed

Plaintiffs sent a letter to Judge Dora Irizarry on February 10, 2012, asking for the appointment of a three-judge panel to hear the case as time was running short. “The March 20 start to the candidate petitioning period is less than six weeks away, yet no congressional lines have even been proposed through New York’s legislative process. It is now exceedingly unlikely that a new congressional redistricting plan can be proposed and passed by the legislative redistricting task force, referred to and passed by the Legislature, signed by the Governor, sent to the U.S. Department of Justice and precleared, all sufficiently in advance of March 20 so that candidates and their supporters can prepare for the petitioning period,” the letter said.^[24]

On February 13, Irizarry ordered such a panel appointed, giving it authority to appoint a special master to draw congressional districts if the legislative stalemate continued. The panel was appointed by the Chief Judge for the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals the next day.^[25]

February 2012: Special master appointed

The panel dismissed calls from legislative leaders to dismiss the case and appointed U.S. Magistrate Judge Roanne Mann as special master. The panel ordered all parties to appear before them and Mann on February 27.^[26] At the hearing, Assembly Democrats and Senate Republicans acknowledged they did not have an agreement through LATFOR and Mann ordered them to submit plans for congressional districts two days later.^[27]

February 2012: Legislators submit maps

On February 29, 2012, legislative leaders said they were unable to agree on a proposed map and instead three of the four legislative conferences submitted their own plans. Senate Democrats chose not to submit a plan because they thought politicians should not draw the maps.^[28]

While all the proposals differed, the three parties each urged the court to preserve the seats of incumbents and agreed that the district held by Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D), who was retiring, should be one of the two eliminated. Since the proposals were all submitted separately, they were not legally binding and Mann was not required to adopt any of them.^[29]

The court also announced it would hire Nathaniel Persily, a professor at Columbia Law School, as an adviser for Mann. Persily had recently served as special master in Connecticut.

March 2012: Court releases draft map, final map

Judge Mann held a public hearing on March 5, 2012, to collect information on the proposals she had received. Lawyers for both the Republican and the Democratic leaders urged Mann to defer to the legislative proposals and to avoid drawing incumbents into the same district.^[30] Mann asked why she should put those considerations before the guidelines set out in the state Constitution, which called for contiguous and compact districts while not mentioning incumbency at all.^[31]

The following day, Mann released her proposed map. Her plan resembled geographically compact lines as proposed by Common Cause. In order to reduce the number of districts from 29 to 27, it eliminated Maurice Hinchey's district, as was proposed by both Democrats and Republicans, and got rid of a district in Queens.^[32]

The legislature could still have avoided Mann's proposal from taking effect by adopting their own plan by March 15. However, on March 11, they announced their failure to reach an agreement. Late the next day, Mann issued her final recommendation, which made only minor changes to her initial recommendation. This plan now went to the panel of three federal judges who had until March 20 to decide whether or not to accept her recommendations.^[33]

Republicans issued their formal objection to the plan on March 14, focusing their arguments on incumbency protection. Their letter said the court should avoid placing incumbents in the same district if at all possible, saying , “Professor Persily generally dismisses the Senate Majority Defendants’ (and other parties’) concerns about ‘respecting the cores of prior districts,’ insisting such claims are merely ‘pretextual arguments for protecting incumbents.’ As a threshold matter, incumbency protection is a traditional redistricting principle, as Professor Persily himself has previously recognized.”^[34]

March 2012: Map approved

The federal three-judge panel approved the new congressional districts on March 19, 2012, the day before candidates could begin collecting signatures to qualify for the ballot.^[35] The map was nearly identical to Mann's proposal.^[36]

January 2012: New senate seat lawsuit

Sen. Martin Dilan (D) joined others in filing suit in Manhattan state Supreme Court on January 31, 2012, arguing that adding a 63rd seat to the Senate is a violation of the state Constitution. According to the lawsuit, "This increase is unconstitutional because LATFOR failed to apply the Senate size formula prescribed in Section 4 consistently, rationally, or in good faith."

The suit said, "Even assuming LATFOR has a modicum of discretion to determine which counting methodology is more faithful to the Constitution, Section 4 requires that its decision be exercised in a manner that is rational, evenhanded, and consistent. LATFOR has no discretion to manipulate the Constitution by changing its counting methodology after every Census to suit its ephemeral purposes, let alone to use two different counting methodologies within the same reapportionment."^[37]

Senate Republicans said the plan met all legal requirements.

In early March 2012, State Supreme Court Judge Richard F. Braun ruled that the court had no ability to review the proposal as it had not been voted on or signed into law and was only a recommendation.^[38] Following the passage of the new districts, the court heard oral arguments in the case on April 6.^[39]

In a decision released April 13, state Supreme Court Justice Richard Braun rejected the Democrats' petition, saying they failed to establish that the process used by Republicans was unconstitutional.^[40] On April 27, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a letter in federal court saying they did not object to the plan.^[41]

References

See also: Redistricting in North Carolina

November 2011: Democrats challenge redistricting maps

On November 4, 2011, state Democrats filed suit against North Carolina's congressional and legislative redistricting plans in Wake County Superior Court. Arguing that the maps violated both the state and U.S. Constitutions, Democrats contended that the maps illegally packed black voters into a few districts and weaken their political clout. In addition, plaintiffs argued the contorted shape of the new districts and high number of split precincts were evidence of gerrymandering. In the 113-page filing, several districts were named: Senate Districts 19 and 21; House Districts 42, 43, and 45; and U.S. Congressional District 4. Republican and House Redistricting Committee Chair David Lewis, Sr. called the charges false but unsurprising. Republican leaders pointed to DOJ approval as proof of the maps' legality.^[1]

November 2011: Community groups file suit

On November 4, 2011, four community groups joined together in opposition to North Carolina's legislative and congressional maps, filing suit over the new plans in Wake County Superior Court. Much like the Democratic Party lawsuit, the groups argued that the maps packed black voters and senselessly split precincts.^[2]

December 2011: Lawsuits consolidated, timeline adopted

The two challenges to North Carolina's new district lines were consolidated into a single case to be heard by a special three-judge panel. After a dispute over the timeline with attorneys for the state, the court considered an expedited timeline under which the case would be decided by mid-February. Attorneys for the state argued that the panel should not make a hasty decision. The consolidated lawsuit argued that the new plans marginalized minority voters by packing them into meandering minority-minority districts. The state cited DOJ approval of the maps as proof of their legality.^[3]

December 2011: Faster timeline rejected by court

On December 19, 2011, a panel hearing the challenges to North Carolina's redistricting maps declined to fast-track the case, siding with attorneys for the state. The plaintiffs, state Democrats and minority groups, said they worried that delay would force the state to use the new maps in 2012. The state's attorneys argued that the plaintiff's legal arguments were a veiled attempt to achieve partisan aims. Whether or not the new maps were used, observers expected the state's primary to be delayed if the case went to trial. The next hearing in the case was scheduled for January 12, 2012.^[4][5]

December 2011: Section 5 upheld in local ballots case

The United States District Court for the District of Columbia rejected a challenge to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. The section required US DOJ pre-approval of elections laws in states with a history of racial discrimination. The lawsuit was filed by North Carolina Rep. Stephen LaRoque (R) and several Kinston residents over a plan to adopt nonpartisan ballots. Section 5 also required DOJ pre-approval of redistricting legislation. LaRoque planned to appeal the decision.^[6]

January 2012: Judges keep primary date intact

On January 20, 2012, the three-judge panel hearing the congressional redistricting challenge refused to delay the North Carolina primary. The plaintiffs argued that the new map constituted racial gerrymandering, contained too many split counties, and the new precincts would create long lines and confuse voters. The judge ruled that delaying the primary would not help resolve these concerns, but noted that the decision should not be interpreted as a rejection of the plaintiffs' arguments.^[7]

• The panel's decision can be found here.

January 2012: Panel says lawsuits can proceed

On January 6, 2012, the three-judge Superior Court panel ruled that the lawsuits against the North Carolina redistricting maps could proceed. The state had asked for the two lawsuits to be entirely dismissed, but the judges ultimately retained more than half of the 37 claims made by plaintiffs.^[8]

April 2012: Oral arguments scheduled

On April 20, 2012, a three-judge state panel heard arguments in a challenge of North Carolina's new legislative and congressional districts. The court ruled the maps could be used in the 2012 elections.

February 2013: New lawsuit

Arguments were made on February 25, 2013, in a redistricting trial challenging the congressional and legislative maps in North Carolina.^[9]

Democratic voters and advocates who filed the suit asked a federal three-judge panel to declare the maps unconstitutional. Attorneys argued that legislators illegally packed African-American voters into districts while failing to keep counties whole. Defendants said that the maps were approved by the United States Department of Justice, as required by the Voting Rights Act.^[9]

References

See also: Redistricting in Ohio

September 2011: Democrats sue to allow veto referendum

Before passing the state's congressional redistricting plan, the Republican-led Ohio General Assembly added a $2.75 million appropriation to help local Boards of Elections implement the plan. Defenders of the move said the bill should count as an appropriations bill and should be exempted from a veto referendum per the Ohio Constitution. In response, Democrats filed suit on September 28, 2011, in the Ohio Supreme Court to affirm their right to challenge the map. An earlier ruling in 2009 upheld the right of citizens to challenge a racetrack slots provision in a state budget bill. Ohio House Republicans called the suit baseless, arguing that the appropriation was pertinent to the bill.^[1] House Speaker William Batchelder (R) says that the court should act by October 9, 2011 in order to give counties time to prepare for the election.^[2]

October 2011: State rejects referendum petition

On October 12, 2011, the Ohio Secretary of State rejected preliminary signatures for a referendum against Ohio's congressional redistricting plan. Although proponents had more than enough signatures to qualify for statewide circulation, the preliminary petition was rejected because of an appropriation within the redistricting bill. Democratic officials expected the decision and argued that the move would give their pending legal challenge further merit.^[3]

• The Secretary of State's press release can be found here.

October 2011: State supreme court approves referendum

On October 14, 2011, the Ohio Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision allowing the referendum against Ohio's congressional redistricting maps to proceed. The Ohio Constitution prohibits referendums against "appropriations for the current expenses of the state government." However, the court found that the redistricting legislation's $2.75 million appropriation, designated for local election officials to implement the new map, did not fund current expenses and, thus, did not exempt the bill from referendum. If the referendum gathered enough signatures, the new redistricting plan would be suspended until voters weighed in.

• The court's opinion in State ex rel Ohioans for Fair Districts v Husted can be found here.

October 2011: Lawsuit seeks to force court-drawn maps

A lawsuit filed in October 2011 got a hearing later in November 2011. The lawsuit, filed by a Batavia resident, argued that without a congressional redistricting map, the 2012 elections would be unconstitutional. Moreover, the lawsuit argued that a local judge, Jerry R. McBride, should draft new plans and retain jurisdiction over future redistricting efforts.^[4]

January 2012: Democrats challenge legislative maps

On January 4, 2012, Ohio Democrats filed suit against Ohio's state legislative redistricting maps. They argued that the maps violated state constitutional requirements for compactness and the preservation of county and municipal boundaries. The new maps split 51 counties and 55 cities. The plaintiffs also alleged that the committee violated open meetings laws by holding secret meetings in a hotel room.^[5]

• The petition in the case can be found here.

February 2012: Case delayed, maps stand for 2012

The Ohio Supreme Court decided to hear the Democratic lawsuits over the new legislative redistricting maps. However, due to the party's delay in filing the challenge, the court ruled that the new maps would stand for the 2012 election and revisions to the maps would apply starting in 2014.^[6]

References

See also: Redistricting in Oklahoma

July 2011: State Senate maps challenged

Sen. Jim Wilson (D) filed a lawsuit with the Oklahoma Supreme Court, challenging Oklahoma's State Senate redistricting plan. Wilson sought to have the plan thrown out and another drafted, saying that the maps violated the Oklahoma Constitution. The state constitution required that "consideration shall be given to population, compactness, area, political units, historical precedents, economic and political interests, contiguous territory, and other major factors, to the extent feasible."^[1] Wilson asked that the task be turned over, for the first time, to the state's bi-partisan backup redistricting commission.

July 2011: Supreme Court to hear redistricting case

Oklahoma Supreme Court Referee Greg Albert met with lawyers and leaders from both sides regarding the new redistricting lines that were being drawn for the Oklahoma State Senate. Democrats said that the new districts were gerrymandered by Republican representatives and that the redistricting violated constitutional requirements regarding compactness, historical precedent, economic and political interests, and contiguous territories.^[2]

August 2011: State may proceed with current maps

State Election Board Secretary Paul Ziriax decided to redraw state precincts based on the redistricting plan approved in May 2011, despite a legal challenge to the senate plan. He said that delaying the process further would create confusion for voters. Besides notifying voters of their new precincts, the state also had to install new voting machines and train poll workers. Ziriax indicated that there were only enough funds to redraw precincts once. If the court mandated significant changes, there might not have been enough funds to once again redraw state precincts. Ziriax intended to move forward with the plan unless ordered not to do so by the court.^[3]

Senate leaders also grew impatient with the legal process. Brian Bingman (R), Senate President pro tem, filed a brief in late July 2011, asking the court to allow 2012 senate elections to proceed under the new maps. He said that a well-reasoned decision was not possible in time for the next election.^[4]

September 1, 2011: Supreme Court upholds maps, refers gerrymandering case to District Court

On September 1, 2011, the Oklahoma Supreme Court threw out a redistricting lawsuit filed by Sen. Jim Wilson (D). The court ruled 9-0 that the maps complied with the Oklahoma Constitution's population requirements. However, the court noted that claims of gerrymandering should be adjudicated at the state district court level. Wilson immediately announced that he would pursue the lawsuit in the District Court (Oklahoma is in the 10th District). He further said that his attorneys never argued population levels, but focused on split communities and gerrymandering. Republicans said that the decision was a sign that their maps were constitutional. Wilson hired a professor to draw new maps for the courts consideration.^[5]

September 6, 2011: Redistricting suit renewed in District Court

After having his initial suit thrown out of the Oklahoma Supreme Court the previous week, Sen Jim Wilson (D) renewed his challenge with a state district court on September 6, 2011. In its decision on the initial case, the Supreme Court argued that district courts had jurisdiction over questions of gerrymandering.^[6]

In addition to challenging the senate redistricting plan, Wilson sought a preliminary injunction to halt implementation of the new maps. Election Board Secretary Paul Ziriax argued that a delay in remapping precincts could seriously disrupt elections and confuse voters.^[6]

The Oklahoma State Senate attempted to join the case in defense of the plan, asking that the court dismiss the lawsuit. Even if the lawsuit failed, Wilson officially started a petition drive to overturn the plan at the ballot box. The proposed measure would have required lawmakers to redraw maps in 2013, using a bi-partisan process.^[7][8][9] A motion to dismiss the case was heard on October 11, 2011 and a trial date was set for October 17, 2011.^[10]

• Court records for the case can be found here.
• Wilson discusses the case here.

October 2011: District Court dismissed lawsuit, appeal promised

The District Court of Oklahoma County rejected the lawsuit filed by Senator Jim Wilson (D). The court found that the issue had already been settled by the Oklahoma Supreme Court despite the high court's recommendation that the issue be brought before a state district court. Wilson planned to file an immediate appeal, returning the issue to the Supreme Court.^[11]

December 2011: Wilson petition failed to meet signature requirement

After repeated attempts to invalidate Oklahoma's new legislative districts, term-limited Senator Jim Wilson (D) turned to the initiative process to invalidate the maps. However, the initiative failed to garner sufficient signatures. Wilson said a late start contributed to the inadequate signature collection.^[12]

January 17, 2012: Supreme Court rejects appeal

On January 17, 2012, the Oklahoma Supreme Court concurred with a state district court in throwing out Senator Jim Wilson's redistricting challenge. Wilson also attempted a initiative campaign against the maps, but was unsuccessful.^[13]

References

See also: Redistricting in Oregon

May 2011: Lawsuit

See also: Redistricting lawsuits relating to the 2010 Census

In May 2011, Oregon Republicans filed a lawsuit asking that, if legislative redistricting failed, a three-judge panel be set up with the members coming from across the state to handle redistricting.^[1]

Tyler Smith, an attorney for the state GOP, brought the case in Yamhill County. Smith filed the suit, which named Governor John Kitzhaber and Secretary of State Kate Brown, both Democrats, on behalf of former Yamhill Treasurer Tony Meeker. Meeker's core complaint, seeking to leave the matter of redistricting with a judicial panel, was his concern that the 1st Congressional District could be drawn too large, falling just within the allowable deviation while diluting residents' votes.^[2] Democrats called the action premature and one analysis held that the suit might be thrown out on those grounds.

Normally, the Secretary of State takes over from the legislature if the latter cannot agree on maps. As the office holder was a Democrat, Republicans had some obvious incentive to move the fallback into the courts. One group, the Board of Commissioners of Tillamook County, agreed, outlining their concerns in a letter. At the core of the Board's concerns was an early conviction that the legislature would fail to enact redistricting and that it was in Tillamook's best interests to begin talking with Secretary of State Kate Brown sooner rather than later.^[3]

August, 2011: No litigation over legislative maps

The litigation deadline for lawsuits over legislative districts was Monday, August 1, 2011. No lawsuits were filed.^[4] Since the earlier GOP suit was contingent on the failure of the legislative process, it did not proceed.

References

See also: Redistricting in Pennsylvania

January 30, 2012: Speaker lawsuit

Speaker of the House Sam Smith (R) filed a federal suit in Philadelphia on January 30, 2012 seeking to stop primaries from being held in the 2001 districts, what he said were unconstitutional boundaries due to population shifts. Additionally, six legislative seats remained vacant. As Speaker, Smith was constitutionally required to call elections for the seats, however, he said doing so would schedule them to take place in unconstitutional districts.^[1]

On February 8, 2012, U.S. District Judge R. Barclay Surrick ruled that the election cycle was too far along to delay it, especially since there was not a reasonable alternative in his view.^[2]

February 2, 2012: Latino Justice lawsuit

New York-based group Latino Justice, working in concert with Latino Lines, filed a lawsuit in Pennsylvania on February 2, 2012, alleging that use of the 2001 lines was unconstitutional and hurt the ability of Latinos to elect representatives of their choice. Under the 2001 map there was only one majority-Latino seat, while the plan the court threw out added three additional seats.^[3]

On February 8, 2012, U.S. District Judge R. Barclay Surrick ruled that the election cycle was too far along to delay it, saying the court understood the concerns of using the 2001 map but "the granting of a temporary restraining order at this juncture would make no sense. Clearly, it would not be in the public interest."^[4]

July 6, 2012: Suits against June 8 plan

On July 6, 2012, the Senate Democratic minority caucus challenged the redrawn maps in state Supreme Court.^[5] A few days later, Josh Shapiro and Leslie Richards, both members of the Montgomery County Board of Commissioners, filed suit against the plan, seeking it be redrawn to keep political jurisdictions whole unless it was absolutely necessary to separate them.^[6]

References

See also: Redistricting in South Carolina

November 11, 2011: Congressional map lawsuit

On November 11, 2011, six voters in Florence, Sumter, Georgetown, Berkeley, Darlington and Charleston counties filed suit against the new U.S. House map, saying that black voters were improperly represented.^[1] The suit requested that a three-judge panel dismiss the map and mandate lawmakers to create a new version of the seven Congressional districts. South Carolina Democratic Party Chairman Dick Harpootlian filed the suit on behalf of the six voters.^[2]

December 2011: Judge recuses himself

In December 2011, the attorney representing Republican lawmakers in the lawsuit over the new South Carolina congressional map filed paperwork requesting that the federal judge be removed from the case.^[3] Billy Wilkins, in his complaint, said that judge Mark Gergel represented the plaintiffs in a similar lawsuit over redistricting last decade. Gergel recused himself from the case, in part because of his work for former Governor of South Carolina Jim Hodges (D). Gergel was replaced by Judge Patrick Duffy.^[4]

March 9, 2012: Federal hearing

A panel of federal judges upheld South Carolina's new congressional and state legislative districts on March 9, 2012 and dismissed the lawsuit that claimed the lines were drawn to weaken African-American voters in the state.^[5][6]

On March 19, 2012, six voters appealed the ruling up to the U.S. Supreme Court.^[7]

October 1, 2012: Upheld by Supreme Court

On October 1, 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the lines were fair and nondiscriminatory.^[8]

References

See also: Redistricting in Tennessee

On March 16, 2012, Democrats filed a lawsuit against the Republican-drawn senate redistricting maps.^[1] The suit argued that the Tennessee State Senate map unnecessarily split too many counties. The implemented map split eight counties while a General Assembly Black Caucus map would have split five.^[2]

References

See also: Redistricting in Texas

More than 12 lawsuits targeting redistricting surfaced in Texas - two dealing with 2010 Census Hispanic figures—one addressing the counting of prisoners and one over the failure of the Texas Legislature to produce a congressional map in the regular session.

July 2011: Consolidation of three lawsuits

San Antonio federal judge Orlando Garcia consolidated three of Texas' redistricting lawsuits on July 6, 2011. The three suits - one filed by a legislator, one filed by the Mexican American Legal Defense Fund, and one by the League of United Latin American Citizens - all centered around claims that the redistricting plans passed by the Texas State Legislature did not give proportional representation to minorities.^[1] The consolidated case commenced on September 6, 2011. The plaintiffs hoped to replace the existing redistricting maps.

October 2011: Interim map hearing scheduled

The San Antonio panel was scheduled to review the recently submitted interim map proposals on Monday October 31, 2011. The court planned to hear the proposals on Monday and then break until Thursday November 3rd, 2011 to account for the judgment of the DC case which was scheduled for Wednesday November 2nd, 2011.

October 2011: Interim map proposals submitted

October 18, 2011 was the deadline for participants to submit interim map proposals in Texas' consolidated redistricting case being heard in a San Antonio federal court. Among those who submitted proposals were: State Representatives Marc Veasey (D) and Harold Dutton, Jr. (D), State Senator Wendy Davis (D), Congressmen Cuellar and Canseco, multiple Hispanic advocacy groups, the NAACP and African-American members of Congress, Travis County plaintiffs, and the State of Texas. One particular proposal put forth by the Mexican American Legislative Caucus could have ended the primary between US Representative Lloyd Doggett (D) and State Representative Joaquin Castro (D) by splitting the contested district into two - one centered around San Antonio and one around Austin. Objections to the proposals had to be submitted to the court by October 24, 2011.^[2]

September 2011: Court drew interim maps

The San Antonio federal court hearing Texas' consolidated redistricting case announced on September 30, 2011 its plans for preemptively drawing interim state house and congressional maps. A similar order was filed on October 3, 2011 putting in place the court's plans to draw interim maps for the state senate. The maps were to be used in place of the state's own maps which were awaiting Voting Rights Act preclearance in a DC court. Hearings on the court's interim maps began on October 31, 2011.^{[3] [4]}

September 2011: Judge halts Texas from implementing maps

US District Judge Orlando Garcia stopped Texas' redistricting maps from becoming legally adopted on September 29, 2011. Garcia was one of three judges on a federal panel in San Antonio hearing the consolidated case consisting of numerous legal challenges to the state's 2011 redistricting plans.^[5] The court order was needed because the maps were set to become law on October 1st, 2011 and with no legal declaration yet to come down on either side, county election officials were in limbo. ^[5]

September 2011: Closing arguments

The federal three-judge panel case began hearing closing arguments from plaintiffs on September 15, 2011. Democratic Representative Marc Veasey's (D) lawyer, Gerry Hebert, said “Let's not pretend the state didn't know the racial implications of what they were doing. They knew it at every click of the mouse in drawing the map.”^[6] Attorneys for the Mexican American Legislative caucus and the Latino Redistricting Task Force also gave closing arguments.^[6] After the close of the trial, a spokeswoman for Attorney General Greg Abbott said in an email “The state is confident that the new legislative and congressional maps comply with both the federal Voting Rights Act and the U.S. Constitution.”^[7] A spokeswoman for Governor Rick Perry commented “The legislature determined and approved the map, and the governor signed it and believes it went through a fair process."^[7]

While the closing arguments were heard on September 15th and 16th, 2011, participants and watchers had to wait to hear a decision. The reason for the delay was judges in the case were awaiting the outcome of another Texas federal redistricting case simultaneously occurring in DC. Texas submitted its plans to a DC federal panel in hopes of obtaining Voting Rights Act clearance. A Dallas lawyer close to the redistricting case said “The San Antonio court will hold back and wait until the D.C. court decides these are legally enforceable maps or not. If the D.C. court decides they are legal, the San Antonio court will then rule on the racial gerrymandering claims. If the D.C. court finds the new maps violate the Voting Rights Act, the issue will come back to San Antonio, and the judges here will draw new maps.”^[7]

February 2011: Undocumented immigrant population lawsuit

The first lawsuit in Texas targeting the 2011 redistricting cycle was filed on February 11, 2011. The Texas Tribune reported that "Attorney Michael Hull of Austin, representing three North Texas voters, sued the state and a bunch of others, alleging that counting unauthorized immigrants in political districts has an unfair and illegal effect on voters in districts with smaller numbers of non-citizens."^[8]

The plaintiffs named in the case were:

"KAAREN TEUBER; JIM K. BURG; RICKY L. GRUNDEN"^[9]

The defendants named in the case were:

"STATE OF TEXAS; RICK PERRY, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Texas; DAVID DEWHURST, in his official capacity as Lieutenant Governor and Presiding Officer of the Texas Senate; JOE STRAUS, in his official capacity as Speaker of the Texas House of Representatives; HOPE ANDRADE, in her official capacity as Secretary of State of the State of Texas; BOYDE RICHIE, in his official capacity as Chair of the Texas Democratic Party; STEVE MUNISTERI, in his official capacity as Chair of the Texas Republican Party; GARY LOCKE, in his official capacity as United States Secretary of Commerce; and ROBERT GROVES, in his official capacity as Director of the United States Bureau of the Census"^[9]

The lawsuit can be viewed in its entirety here.

April 2011: MALC Hispanic population lawsuit

The second lawsuit in Texas targeting the 2011 redistricting cycle was filed on April 5, 2011. The Mexican American Legislative Caucus filed a lawsuit against the state of Texas requesting that redistricting measures be halted due to alleged misrepresentation of Hispanics. The group claimed that rural border communities coined colonias, inhabited largely by poor unauthorized immigrants, were undercounted because the Census Bureau did not mail forms out to members of the 800 to 1,200 colonias. A spokeswoman for the governor’s office said they had received the litigation and would not be commenting on the issue while the matter was still pending.^[10]

The lawsuit sought to halt redistricting maps being drawn by the Texas Legislature. Judge Ramon Garcia, of Hidalgo County -- one of the affected areas -- was preparing action against the U.S. Census Bureau over similar concerns. He believed that "the census tally of about 750,000 county residents was short by as many as 250,000 people, an undercount that could mean $300 million to $400 million in lost federal funding for education, health care and infrastructure."^[10]

A spokeswoman for the U.S. Census Bureau told the Houston Chronicle that any errors would have the chance to be resolved in 2012 through the Census Coverage Measurement Program and the Count Question Resolution Program.^[10]

May 2011: Prisoner counting lawsuit

A third redistricting lawsuit had been filed in Texas. Representative Harold Dutton (D) of Houston filed a suit in federal court against the state of Texas on Monday May 9th, 2011 arguing that prisoners should be counted in their homes of residence for redistricting purposes. They are counted in the locations of their incarceration. The Houston Chronicle reports that "Dutton said some rural counties are awarded more population than they deserve using current prisoner population counting methods. Urban counties, meanwhile, should be able to report higher population counts, he said. Dutton said the way the state counts prisoners violates rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution."^[11]

May 2011: Representative Joe Barton lawsuit

Representative Joe Barton (R) filed Texas' fourth redistricting lawsuit with District Judge James Lagomarsino in Navarro County on May 22, 2011 at 12:01 am. Barton was suing because the Texas Legislature had failed to produce a new map for Texas' U.S. congressional delegation.^[12]

An email from Barton to constituents dated May 23, 2011 reads:

Dear Texas Colleague,
At 12:01 a.m. on May 22, 2011, moments after it became clear that the Texas Legislature could not create a new Congressional District map in time, I filed a lawsuit in Navarro County District Court to protect the constitutional rights of the citizens of Texas. I had hoped that the Texas Legislature would fulfill its duty. However, time expired and I believe filing a lawsuit was the only way to ensure that our constituents had a Congressional map that meets the needs and rights of every voter. I acted immediately after the legislative deadline passed to increase the likelihood that this lawsuit would become the vehicle for Attorney General of Texas to use in creating the Congressional map for the 2012 election cycle. I will keep you updated on the progress of the suit. As lead plaintiff, I will be pressing a map to the attorney general and the court. Your thoughts and ideas will be very helpful so please don’t hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Joe Barton, 6th District of Texas, Member of Congress.^[12]

May 2011: Travis County, TX lawsuit

Travis County, TX had plans in place to sue the state of Texas over redistricting. County commissioners authorized County Attorney David Escamilla to file a suit on May 24th, 2011. "County officials are concerned about current plans to split Travis County into four U.S. congressional districts, Escamilla said. "We want to be in a position to counter those efforts.""^[13]

June 2011: League of United Latin American Citizens lawsuit

Another redistricting lawsuit was filed in Texas on June 11, 2011, this one from the League of United Latin American Citizens, "the oldest and largest Latino membership organization in the United States."^[14] The group filed the suit against the state of Texas over how redistricting lines were drawn and the resulting effects on minority representation.

June 2011: Texas Latino Redistricting Task Force

A coalition of Hispanic advocacy groups, with the Texas Latino Redistricting Task Force as lead plaintiff, filed a federal redistricting lawsuit against Governor Rick Perry on June 17, 2011. The suit, filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, challenged redistricting plans for the Texas House of Representatives and the Texas U.S. congressional delegation on grounds that minority voting representation was not proportionate to 2010 Census population data. The suit sought to strengthen Hispanic voting power within the state.^[15]

July 2011: Marc Veasey lawsuit

Democratic State Representative Marc Veasey announced in July 2011 he intended to file a lawsuit to block the state's congressional redistricting plan. He said the plan disproportionately diluted minority voting power in the Lone Star State.

August 2012: Maps found to violate Voting Rights Act

On August 28, 2012, a federal three-judge panel in Washington denied pre-clearance to the legislature's set of maps, effectively tossing out new state senate, state house and congressional districts.^[16]

According to the ruling the new maps diluted minority voting strength and discriminated against Hispanics and Black people, both violations of the Voting Rights Act. While minority groups hailed the ruling as a victory, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott (R) said the panel expanded protections of the VRA and vowed he would "appeal this flawed decision to the U.S. Supreme Court."^[17]

A different federal three-judge panel in San Antonio ruled on August 31 that the November 2012 elections in the state would proceed with the interim maps drawn by a court back in February.^[18]

Abbott announced on October 19 that the state appealed the case to the U.S. Supreme Court, stating,^[19]

The State of Texas is appealing this case because the lower court improperly extended the Voting Rights Act beyond the limits imposed by the Constitution and created new standards that have never been recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court. The maps enacted by the Texas Legislature satisfy all necessary legal requirements, so the judges in Washington, D.C. simply created new requirements in an attempt to justify their rejection of Texas' maps. In order to ensure the Texas Legislature's maps apply to the next election cycle, the State is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case and override the lower court's flawed decision during the Court's current term.

References

See also: Redistricting in Virginia

Federal lawsuit

November 2011: Lawsuits seek court intervention

On November 16, 2011 a group of Virginia residents filed suit asking the U.S. District Court in Alexandria to draw the state’s new congressional districts. Although lawmakers pledged to pass maps as early as possible in the 2012 session, the plaintiffs argued that the Virginia Constitution required the maps to be completed by the end of the year. In addition, they claimed that the 60-day Department of Justice approval process further exacerbated the delay.^[1] A similar case had also been filed in state court.^[2]

February 2012: Lawsuit dismissed

On February 10, 2012, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia dismissed the lawsuit. The court did not elaborate on its decision. At the time of the decision, a similar case was still pending in state court.^[3]

State lawsuit

January 2012: Cuccinelli seeks court intervention

On January 25, 2012, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli (R) asked the Virginia Supreme Court to intervene in the redistricting process..^[4][5]

January 2012: Supreme Court declines to intervene

On January 31, 2012, the Virginia Supreme Court declined to hear a case challenging the Virginia General Assembly's authority to pass a redistricting plan after 2011. In response to the court ruling and to accommodate a 60-day review review period under the Voting Rights Act, Cuccinelli asked the General Assembly to move the state's congressional primary from June to August.^[6]

February 2012: Circuit Court dismisses challenge

On February 28, 2012, a Virginia circuit court judge dismissed the state challenge pending against the state's congressional districts. Judge Richard Taylor ruled that although the Virginia Constitution instructed lawmakers to complete redistricting in 2011, it did not forbid the completion of maps in 2012.^[7]

October 2014: Ruling invalidates congressional map

On October 7, 2014, a panel of federal judges ruled that Virginia's congressional map violated the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution. The judges ruled that "the GOP-controlled state legislature's decision to pack African-Americans into the 3rd Congressional District ... was motivated purely by race." Brian Smoot, a member of the National Democratic Redistricting Trust, which was involved in redistricting efforts in Virginia and elsewhere, said, "We are pleased with the ruling. The current makeup of the congressional delegation does not reflect the voters across Virginia. We expect this to help alleviate that problem."^[8]

The legislature was required to draw new district lines by April 1, 2015, leaving the 2014 elections unaffected.^[8]

References

See also: Redistricting in Washington

April 2011: Yakima City Council lawsuit

Filed by Tim Schoenrock, an immigration attorney hired by former Yakima Democratic Party chairman Tony Sandoval, the April 2011 suit charged that the city was on long term violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Acts, the text banning voting procedures designed to lead to discriminatory outcomes.

Sandoval argued that because Hispanics registered to vote and exercised that right in lower percentages than whites, the former group was being discriminated against by Yakima's city council election system. Under the at-large election system, Sandoval alleged, whites were wrongly able to parlay their greater political engagement into more representation on the council. The lawsuit claimed Yakima's 40% Hispanic population was underrepresented.^[1]

Both Sandoval and Schoenrock asked for the city to be divided into seven equal districts, which they said would allow concentrated populations a better chance of electing a member of their own community.

Schoenrock told reporters, "The white population votes at a larger percentage than Latinos thereby overruling every time the Latino group disagrees with the white vote."^[2]

February 2012: Vancouver citizen petition

John Milem, a retired attorney from Vancouver, filed a petition with the state Supreme Court on February 8, 2012, asking them to redraw the lines in order to meet legal requirements of compactness, equal representation, and competitiveness.^[3]

Milem argued the state redistricting commission did not draw the lines as required by state law. The plan, he said, limited competition and did not represent communities as best as it could. The new congressional map split 9 counties, two more than the previous map, while the legislative map split 17. According to Milem, it was only necessary to split three to four for counties on the congressional map and 11 for the legislative map.^[4]

While the case remained pending, the Washington Supreme Court authorized the use of the new districts for the 2012 elections on March 14. Chief Justice Barbara Madsen, writing for the court, said, "In view of the approaching deadlines for the 2012 elections and the need for adequate time to perfect the case and consider briefs and arguments of the parties on the merits of Mr. Milem's petition, the court unanimously agreed" to allow the new districts to be used.^[5]

References

See also: Redistricting in West Virginia

August 2011: Putnam, Hurricane, Chamber threaten lawsuits

Putnam County, the City of Hurricane, and the West Virginia Chamber of Commerce considered lawsuits over West Virginia redistricting. Putnam County Commission President Steve Andes said the county would either file or join a lawsuit against the plan. County officials were concerned that the new House of Delegates districts decreased their representation. The city of Hurricane also considered a lawsuit. Its mayor, Scott Edwards, said "It's wrong. The way it's done is absolutely wrong." The city was drawn into a district with southern counties that Hurricane officials contend shared little with the city.^[1]

The West Virginia Chamber of Commerce expressed broader concerns. The group had been a vocal advocate for single members districts and a vocal critic of the House redistricting process. Referring to the decision to reduce rather than eliminate multi-member districts, Chamber President Steve Roberts said, "I think it might be fair to say that this was a session in which we took two steps back and maybe one step forward." He added that the chamber was investigating the redistricting plans to see if any voters had been inequitably treated.^[2]

August 23, 2011: Putnam votes to sue, Mason and Raleigh considered

On August 23, Putnam County Commissioners voted 2-1 to challenge the state's legislative redistricting plan. Although the county could have accommodated three of its own house districts, the new plan divided Putnam between five districts with only one wholly contained within its boundaries. Opponents of the plan said that Putnam should be guaranteed more than one local representative. However, supporters said that three of the five delegates would likely be Putnam residents anyway.

Mason County, which could have justified a single delegate district, remained divided between two districts. A Mason resident had not been elected to the house in recent memory. County officials stated that they were considering joining the Putnam suit.^[3][4][5]

Raleigh County also considered either joining the suit or filing its own. County Commission President John Aliff said "We need to look to see if, in fact, we are going to contemplate a lawsuit... would we be better doing it as an individual county, or with another county? Those things would have to be looked at." The major concern was that Raleigh would be divided among neighboring districts.^[6][7]

September 8, 2011: Monroe in, Raleigh out

On September 8, Monroe County announced that the county would challenge the House of Delegates redistricting plan. Under the plan, nearly all of Monroe was part of a two-member district including parts of Summers and Raleigh counties. Monroe had a smaller population in the district than either of the other two counties. The rest of Monroe county would have been paired with Greenbrier county. Given that the county was at a population disadvantage in both districts, Monroe officials said that it would have difficulty electing its own representative. Raleigh county also considered a challenge, but announced later that it would not pursue the suit.^[8][9]

September 2, 2011: FOIA request denied

On September 2, the West Virginia State Legislature denied a Freedom of Information Act request for internal redistricting communications. The request was filed by the West Virginia Republican Party. Legislative officials argued that the state’s FOIA law specifically exempted communications of that kind.^[10]

• Both the request and denial letters can be found here.

September 2, 2011: Republican FOIA request goes court

On September 2, the West Virginia State Legislature denied the state GOP's Freedom of Information Act request for internal redistricting communications. Party leaders had called the 2011 redistricting process a fiasco and called the denial a cover-up. Legislative officials said that the state’s FOIA law specifically exempted communications of that kind.^[11]

On Monday, September 19, the West Virginia Republican Party announced that it planned to challenge the denial in court.^[12] The GOP also asked the state to preserve all the relevant records relating to redistricting, advising the state of its obligation to preserve such records.^[13]

• The FOIA request and denial can be found here.

• The GOP lawsuit press release can be found here.

September 13, 2011: Putnam issues notice of legal action, Mason in

On September 13, Putnam County issued a notice of pending legal action against West Virginia's House redistricting plan. Putnam County Commission President Steve Andes argued, "If this isn't gerrymandering, then they need to take that word out of the dictionary." Putnam county was divided among five House districts with only one fully contained within the county. By itself, the county warranted three House districts. Mason county would also join the suit, arguing that it deserved its own House district. According to Andes, five to six other counties were considering joining the suit.^[14]

October 6, 2011: Cooper and three others file notice

Four notices of legal action were given concerning the House of Delegates redistricting plan. These four lawsuits were planned by attorney Thornton Cooper of Kanawha County as well as by county officials in Monroe, Putnam, and Mason counties. Stephen Skinner, an attorney from Jefferson County, was still considering a lawsuit over the congressional plans.^[15][16]

October 13, 2011: Cooper first to file suit

On October 13, attorney and former congressional candidate Thornton Cooper filed the first lawsuit against West Virginia’s House redistricting plan. Cooper said that the map violated the West Virginia Constitution by failing to provide equal representation. He said that the court should overturn the map and order the legislature to draw a constitutional map by the end of the year. If the deadline was not met, said Cooper, the court should impose his own map, which contained 100 single-member districts. Several lawsuits were still expected against the House plan.^[17]

October 27, 2011: Monongalia residents join Cooper

On October 27, former legislator Frank Deem and several Monongalia residents petitioned to join Thornton Cooper’s challenge of the House redistricting plan. However, unlike Cooper, Deem and the other intervenors sought to challenge the West Virginia State Senate plan. They said that if multi-member House districts were unconstitutional, then any Senate districts formed around those districts were unconstitutional. In addition, they said that the Senate districts did not keep with the state constitutional requirement that districts be “compact, formed of contiguous territory, bounded by county lines, and, as nearly as practicable, equal in population.” Their challenge centered on the division of Monongalia County into three Senate districts.^[18]

October 20, 2011: County officials face uncertain districts

With one lawsuit filed and several more expected, the state’s House of Delegates districts, and possibly its congressional districts, were open to court-mandated revisions. State officials did not plan to dictate how and when county election officials implemented the new plans.^[19]

October 21, 2011: Putnam and Mason counties file suit

On October 21, Putnam and Mason Counties formally filed suit against the House of Delegates redistricting plan in the West Virginia Supreme Court. Both counties maintained that their populations justified additional dedicated representatives.^[20]

House Speaker seeks to intervene in defense of maps

House Speaker Rick Thompson (D) asked to intervened as a defendant in the two redistricting cases before the West Virginia Supreme Court. Thompson argued that court involvement in redistricting was a significant breach of the separation of powers. Thompson described the redistricting process as a "purely legislative task." Some speculated that Thompson decided to intervene because Secretary of State Natalie Tennant (named as a defendant in the lawsuits) was privately sympathetic to the challenges.^[21]

November 4, 2011: Four more lawsuits filed

In total, five lawsuits were pending against West Virginia's legislative maps. The State Supreme Court had asked state officials to present arguments in defense of the legislative redistricting plans on November 17.^[22]

Jefferson County

The Jefferson County Commission voted unanimously to challenge the state’s congressional redistricting map in federal court, specifically targeting the new 2nd District. Attorney Stephen Skinner, who prepared the lawsuit, filed his complaint on November 4. The complaint centered on the exclusion of Hampshire or Mineral counties and the Eastern Panhandle being split into two districts. The complaint also said that District 2 did not meet the state constitution’s compactness requirement. Several commission members joined the lawsuit as private individuals.^[23][24]

Monroe County

Monroe County also officially filed its redistricting challenge on November 4, seeking to overturn the new House of Delegates redistricting plan. Under the plan, Monroe was divided into two districts. Given that the county was at a population disadvantage in both districts, Monroe officials said that it would have difficulty electing its own representative.^[25]

Monongalia and Wood Counties, Thornton Cooper

Several Monongalia and Wood County residents (including Frank Deem) also officially filed suit on November 4, challenging West Virginia’s State Senate redistricting plan. In addition, Thornton Cooper, who was also challenging the State House maps, filed a separate petition against the Senate plan. The focus of the complaints was that several new districts exceeded population targets and unnecessarily divided counties. Secretary of State Natalie Tennant responded to the petition and defended the maps. House Speaker Richard Thompson also defended of the maps. Tennant’s response can be found here. (dead link)^{[26][27][28][29]}

November 17, 2011: WV Supreme Court hears arguments

On November 17, the West Virginia Supreme Court heard arguments from several groups challenging the state’s legislative redistricting plans. According to reports, the court seemed cautious about usurping the prerogative of legislators. Attorneys for the state said that several US Supreme Court rulings supported the legislature’s approach. Justice Thomas E. McHugh acknowledged that lawmakers had considerable leeway in designing maps. However, the plaintiffs said that the West Virginia Constitution mandates compacted districts and the preservation of county lines. This, they said, must be the baseline from which legislators entertained other considerations.^[30]

November 23, 2011: WV Supreme Court upholds redistricting maps

On November 23, the West Virginia Supreme Court upheld the state's new legislative districts, denying the five lawsuits filed against the plans. While the court did not immediately issue an opinion explaining its decision, the court had shown hesitance in interfering with the legislative redistricting process. Plaintiff Thornton Cooper said the ruling was evidence that a constitutional amendment was necessary to take the process out of the hands of state lawmakers.^[31]

State GOP Chair Mike Stuart disagreed with the ruling, but said that the decision only upheld the plans with respect to the State Constitution. The Putnam County Commission, one of the plaintiffs, was reportedly considering a federal challenge.^[32][33][34]

February 13, 2012: Full opinion released

On February 13, the West Virginia Supreme Court released it full opinion upholding the state's redistricting maps. The decision was handed down in late November. The majority opinion said that the court may only assess whether the maps satisfied constitutional requirements, not whether those maps were the best way of satisfying said requirements.^[35]

• The full opinion can be found here.

November 30, 2011: Federal case moved forward

Despite the State Supreme Court's ruling in favor of the new legislative plans, the Jefferson County lawsuit against the state's congressional districts moved forward. On November 30, a three-judge panel, including one Circuit Court judge and two District Court judges, was assigned to the case. Thorton Cooper was also allowed to intervene as a plaintiff in the case. Jefferson County said that the plan violated the one person, one vote principle. Further, the county said that the exclusion of Hampshire or Mineral counties from District 2 diluted representation in the Eastern Panhandle by splitting it into two districts. The county also maintained that District 2 was not sufficiently compact.^[36][37][38]

December 18, 2011: Briefs filed

Both sides in the federal redistricting case filed briefs the week of December 18. The Jefferson County Commission was responsible for the suit and said that the new 2nd District violated compactness requirements and contained too many residents. Attorneys for the state said that the plan, known as the "Mason County flip" because it only moved Mason County, was able to preserve county lines and avoid incumbent matchups without significant changes. Notably, Senate Majority Leader John Unger (D) had voiced opposition to the congressional maps and agreed with the plaintiffs that they diluted the Eastern Panhandle.^[39]

Panel set date for argument

The federal panel hearing a challenge to the state's congressional districts had scheduled arguments in the case for December 27, 2011.^[40]

January 3, 2012: Panel rules map unconstitutional

On Tuesday, January 3, a three-judge panel ruled West Virginia's congressional redistricting plan unconstitutional due to its unequal distribution of population among the state’s three districts. The court gave the West Virginia Legislature until January 17 to come up with a new map -- otherwise, the panel would redraw the map. The state planed to appeal the ruling to the US Supreme Court and was seeking a stay on the decision. If granted, the stay could have given legislators more time to revise their maps even if the panel's ruling was not overturned on appeal.^[41][42]

• The decision in the case can be found here.

January 10, 2012: Deadline removed

After the state's new congressional map was struck down by a panel of federal judges, the judicial panel agreed to remove the January 17 deadline for the West Virginia Legislature to revise its maps. The panel's January 10 decision would also allow the state to change its candidate filing deadlines to accommodate the revision process. The state had asked for a stay of the decision while it pursued an appeal with the US Supreme Court, but its motion was denied.

January 20, 2012: US Supreme Court upholds map

On Friday, January 20, the US Supreme Court stayed a lower court's ruling requiring West Virginia lawmakers to redraw the state's congressional redistricting map. The order suggested that the court would be sympathetic to the state's defense in a full appeal. The order also allowed the state to move forward with the new maps for the 2012 elections. Prior to the ruling, several alternative plans had been considered in the state legislature.^[43][44][45]

The state had until March 27 to file a brief with the Supreme Court or seek an extension on the stay. On March 27, the state filed a brief asking the court to hear the case. If the case did not go before the court, the lower court's ruling would have taken effect, and the maps would be redrawn.^[46][47]

On September 25, 2012, the Supreme Court reversed the ruling of the lower federal court, upholding the new congressional districts as constitutional. In their eight-page ruling the Supreme Court stated somewhat unequal districts were permissible as the Legislature legitimately sought to avoid drawing incumbents into the same district while keeping counties intact.^[48]

References

See also: Redistricting in Wisconsin

June 2011: Citizen lawsuit

On June 10, 2011, fifteen citizens, including former Senate Majority Leader Judy Robson, filed a lawsuit seeking new redistricting maps to be drawn by a panel of judges.

Robson said, “We are petitioning the court to redraw the legislative district lines. After the 2010 census, it was clear the legislative district maps were no longer equal. We are asking the court to do this since the Legislature has failed to act.”^[1]

The group of citizens also asked a federal judge in July 2011 to throw out the new maps approved by the legislature, alleging they violated both the state and U.S. constitutions, as well as the federal Voting Rights Act, by dividing cities and minority communities.^[2] The new maps, they argued, disenfranchised a large number of voters by depriving them of the right to vote for a state senator in November 2012. Senators in Wisconsin serve four-year staggered terms. Under the normal process, voters electing a senator in 2008 would vote again in 2012, but 300,000 of those voters had been shifted to new districts, meaning they wouldn't vote until 2014.^[3]

On July 27, the federal court in Milwaukee addressed the first suit, saying it would not take over the process and draw the maps, citing no special circumstances that would necessitate such a move.^[4]

On September 26, Chief Judge for the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals Frank Easterbrook issued an order that created a federal three-judge panel to hear the case. It was made up of Joseph Stadtmueller from the Eastern District of Wisconsin, Diane Wood from the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals and Robert Dow from the Northern District of Illinois.^[5]

On October 21, the three-judge panel ruled the suit could continue, noting the 300,000 voters in question. "That number vastly exceeds the 173,976 voters that were disenfranchised under the 1983 redistricting law, which persuaded the three-judge panel to find a constitutional violation. If the plaintiffs are correct that the redistricting law disenfranchises 300,000 voters, then their claim for relief appears much more than speculative at this stage of the proceedings," the decision stated.^[3]

November 2011: Congressional delegation tries to join suit

In mid-November 2011, the state's five Republican U.S. House members filed paperwork to intervene in the case to protect their interest. The three Democratic members of Congress also filed to join the suit. The group that originally brought the lawsuit argued against allowing congressional members of either party from joining, saying it would open the floodgates to a myriad of parties wishing to protect their own interests. Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen (R), who represented the state in the suit, said he did not oppose allowing the Republican members of Congress to intervene and would most likely not oppose allowing Democrats as well.^[6]

December 2011: Republican depositions

The three-judge panel ruled on December 8, 2011, that a consultant and a Senate aide who helped draft the maps had to give depositions and turn over documents to Democrats in the case.^[7] The panel issued a similar ruling on December 20 and, on January 3, 2012, clarified the decision, saying that nearly all information must be released by Republicans, who had argued for secrecy under attorney-client privilege.^[8]

The panel said that Republican legislators filed frivolous motions in an attempt to keep information private and ordered them to pay the attorney's fees for the plaintiffs in the motion. The ruling said, "Quite frankly, the Legislature and the actions of its counsel give every appearance of flailing wildly in a desperate attempt to hide from both the court and the public the true nature of exactly what transpired in the redistricting process . . . [the court] will not suffer the sort of disinformation, foot-dragging, and obfuscation now being engaged in by Wisconsin's elected officials and/or their attorneys."^[9]

February 2012: Documents ordered released

In early February 2012, Republicans released documents that showed nearly all Republican legislators signed legal agreements to not discuss the maps while they were in progress. Also included was a memo of talking points that said, "Public comments on this map may be different than what you hear in this room. Ignore the public comments."^[10]

The secrecy agreements all had the signature of attorney Eric McLeod of Michael Best & Friedrich, who was one of the attorneys that advised legislators during the map-making process. In a deposition, Adam Foltz, a legislative aide to Assembly Speaker Jeff Fitzgerald, said he probably helped write the talking points, but did not remember doing so. When asked about the stated suggestion to ignore public comments, Foltz said, "I honestly don't know exactly what it's referring to there."^[10] While Fitzgerald had yet to comment on the matter, his brother, Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald, said of the talking points, "I've never seen that and no other member of my caucus has seen that. It wasn't put together for me."^[11]

On February 9, 2012, 13 Democratic legislators sent Wisconsin Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen a letter that requested an investigation by the Department of Justice.^[12]

On February 16, 2012, the three-judge panel agreed the disputed documents could not be kept secret and forced Republicans to release them. Most of the documents were between hired attorneys and legislative staffers working on the map.^[13] They indicated that a large amount of the public testimony given in favor of the maps was choreographed by Republicans.^[14]

January 2012: Errors found in maps

In a memo issued January 13, 2012, the Wisconsin Government Accountability Board said they were unable to strictly follow the law setting legislative boundaries and that some voters were not in the districts legislators intended them to be. An analysis of 19 counties by legislative technology workers found over 4,000 voters in the wrong municipality, with at least 1,000 that would probably have to be moved to a different Assembly district. The memo warned that the situation could have occurred in most or even all counties.

The problem stemmed from a reversal of the redistricting process. Normally, local officials draw their maps first, with legislative lines drawn afterward. During this cycle, Republicans, who were in the middle of recall elections that threatened their majority in the Senate, changed the law to allow them to draw legislative lines first. This meant they did so without fully accurate local information.^[15]

On January 19, 2012, the state agreed to turn over documents regarding the errors and identify someone who could be deposed over the matter. Earlier in the week the state had submitted a court order that sought to allow them to withhold the documents. The group suing the state responded by asking the court to sanction the state for not providing the records.^[16]

February 2012: Trial underway

The trial was scheduled to begin on February 21, 2012, but the three judge panel said redistricting was better left to lawmakers than the court. To that end they asked attorneys in the case to meet with legislators to ask them to consider altering the maps. Republicans said they would be willing to do so but that the law would not allow them. The court rejected this argument and asked them to reconsider a second time, but again they declined.

With their refusal, the court began the trial on February 23, 2012.^[17] Plaintiffs dropped several allegations from the suit, including charges that Assembly districts in Black neighborhoods were inappropriately drawn and that the discriminatory effects of the maps were intentional. That left only two main issues for the court to decide - if the maps unconstitutionally diluted Latino voting power and if the 300,000 were moved needlessly, delaying their ability to vote in a Senate election.^[18]

Presiding Judge J.P. Stadtmueller said a written decision would be issued in the following few weeks.^[19]

March 2012: Two assembly districts ordered redrawn

The court issued their ruling on March 22, 2012, upholding congressional and state senate districts, but ordering two Milwaukee-area assembly districts to be redrawn. The panel stated the evidence “supports the need for a majority-minority district for Milwaukee’s Latino community, not just one or two influence districts.”^[20] They sent the map back to the legislature, ordering them to redraw Districts 8 and 9 without affecting any of the other districts. In the meantime, the Wisconsin Government Accountability Board was barred from implementing the new map.

Although the judges upheld the great majority of districts drawn by Republicans, they criticized the process, saying it was "needlessly secret, regrettably excluding input from the overwhelming majority of Wisconsin citizens."^[21]

On March 27, the court took the task of fixing the two districts away from the legislature, saying lawmakers weren't able to make even the changes necessary to bring the map into compliance.^[22] In doing so, the court ordered the defendant and the plaintiffs in the case to try to reach agreement by April 2. If unable to do so, they were instructed to submit their own recommendations to the court by April 3.^[23]

On the day both sides submitted their proposals, a spokeswoman for the state Department of Justice said the state would most likely appeal the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.^[24]

The court accepted the plan put forth by Democrats on April 11, saying it did a better job than the Republican plan.^[25]

April 2012: Appeal to Supreme Court

Wisconsin Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen (R) appealed the three-judge panel's decision regarding the two Assembly districts they ordered to be redrawn. The appeal went directly to the United States Supreme Court, who was required to take the case.^[26]

Democrats called the move unnecessary and expensive. Assembly Minority Leader Peter Barca (D) stated, "Does their appetite for wasting taxpayer money on protecting their own political interests ever end? It must be the first time in history anyone has appealed their 'vindication' to the Supreme Court."^[26]

In response to criticism, Van Hollen said, "While some view the adverse portion of the district court decision as being inconsequential, I disagree. Any time a federal court rejects a state redistricting statute, and decides to redraw or adjust a legislative district, it is a serious matter and appropriate for appellate review."^[26]

Van Hollen dropped his appeal on June 18, agreeing to pay the plaintiffs over $185,000.^[27]

October 2011: Voces de la Frontera lawsuit

The Latino community group Voces de la Frontera filed suit against the Wisconsin Government Accountability Board on October 31, 2011, claiming that the new legislative redistricting plan deprived Milwaukee's south side Latino community of a voting majority in the 8th Assembly district.^[28]

The lawsuit said, “As a result of the redistricting plan, Latino citizens have less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the political process and to elect candidates of their choice to the Legislature of Wisconsin.”^[29]

The case was consolidated with the case brought earlier by a group of citizens.^[10]

November 2011: Recall-related suits

On November 18, 2011, a group of citizens asked a federal court to make sure that any recall elections taking place in 2012 occurred in the old districts where the legislators were elected from, rather than the newly drawn districts.^[30] Three days later, a group of Republicans asked the Wisconsin Supreme Court to require any recall elections take place in the new districts.^[31]

Republicans filed a second lawsuit in Waukesha County on November 29 and requested that a panel of three circuit court judges hear the case.^[32] On December 2, Republicans asked to withdraw their first lawsuit, a move Democrats immediately tried to block, saying the court should keep the case and dismiss it at a later date. The request came after it was known that Justice David Prosser, absent with an illness, would not take part in the case.^[33] That same day, Republicans amended their complaint, requesting a single Waukesha County judge hear the case, rather than the three-judge panel.^[34]

References

See also: Redistricting in Wyoming

April 2012: Lawsuit filed

A group of Wyoming citizens filed a lawsuit challenging the state's legislative redistricting plans. They argued that the plans did not give sparsely populated counties adequate representation. In addition, the residents claimed that the map split more county lines than necessary. The suit was filed with the State Supreme Court.^[1][2]

References