Election Law Commons^™

Keynote Speech: Walking The Line: Modern Gerrymandering And Partisanship, Nicholas O. Stephanopoulos

Georgia Law Review

INTRODUCTION I am going to be discussing an ongoing project of mine that I call hyperpartisan election law. I make three main arguments in this project. The first is that almost all of election law was created during an unusually nonpartisan period in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s. Consistent with this period's very low level of partisanship, election law originally did not intend to, and did not actually have the effect, of addressing partisan cleavages. The second claim is that as the country's voters and politicians have become ever more partisan over the last generation, election law has adapted in …

Race And Representation Revisited: The New Racial Gerrymandering Cases And Section 2 Of The Vra, Guy-Uriel Charles, Luis Fuentes-Rohwer

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Judicial Intervention As Judicial Restraint, Guy-Uriel Charles, Luis E. Fuentes-Rohwer

Faculty Scholarship

This paper examines the Court's decision in Gil v. Whitford. It advances two claims. First, it provides a comprehensive account of the Court's skepticism of judicial supervision of democratic politics, an account that we call the narrative of nonintervention. It situates Gill within that account and argues that the Court's reluctance to intervene is a function of the Court's institutional calculus that it ought to protect its legitimacy and institutional capital when it engages in what look like political fights. Second, the paper provides an instrumentalist account for judicial intervention. It argues that the Court should intervene to prevent partisan …

Incarcerated And Unrepresented: Prison-Based Gerrymandering And Why Evenwel’S Approval Of “Total Population” As A Population Base Shouldn’T Include Incarcerated Populations, Emily J. Heltzel

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Gerrymandering And The Constitutional Norm Against Government Partisanship, Michael S. Kang

Michigan Law Review

This Article challenges the basic premise in the law of gerrymandering that partisanship is a constitutional government purpose at all. The central problem, Justice Scalia once explained in Vieth v. Jubilerer, is that partisan gerrymandering becomes unconstitutional only when it “has gone too far,” giving rise to the intractable inquiry into “how much is too much.” But the premise that partisanship is an ordinary and lawful purpose, articulated confidently as settled law and widely understood as such, is largely wrong as constitutional doctrine. The Article surveys constitutional law to demonstrate the vitality of an important, if implicit norm against …

Redistricting Reform In Wisconsin To Curtail Gerrymandering: The Wisconsin Impartial Citizens Redistricting Commission, Joseph W. Bukowski

Marquette Law Review

After an extremely partisan gerrymander in 2011, Wisconsin needs redistricting reform in order to eliminate partisan politics from the process. Now more than ever, momentum for change has reached its peak: the Wisconsin legislative maps as drawn in 2011 were ruled unconstitutional in Whitford v. Gill; the Supreme Court has recently ruled in favor of states implementing independent redistricting commissions; and nearly half of the states in the United States are beginning to use independent commissions for redistricting. This Comment proposes a unique approach for Wisconsin to adopt in order to curtail gerrymandering: the Wisconsin Impartial Citizens Redistricting Commission (WICRC). …

Section 6: Election Law Panel, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School

Supreme Court Preview

No abstract provided.

The Boundaries Of Partisan Gerrymandering, John M. Greabe

Law Faculty Scholarship

[Excerpt] “In my most recent column, I expressed concern about the effectiveness of the constitutional decision rules that currently govern gerrymandering – the redrawing of electoral districts in a manner that favors the incumbent majority at the expense of those out of power.

Briefly, the Constitution has not been interpreted to prohibit redistricting with an eye toward advancing the interests of the political party in power. But it has been interpreted to bar legislators from redistricting on racial grounds – at least in most circumstances.

The problem is that voters from certain racial groups tend to vote overwhelmingly for …

The Case For State Attorney General Enforcement Of The Voting Rights Act Against Local Governments, Perry Grossman

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

The summer of 2016 showed that racial discrimination in voting is alive and well, as federal courts across the country struck down state statutes that disproportionately disenfranchise minority voters, including voter ID laws, restrictions on early voting, and racially gerrymandered legislative districts. However, at the local level, discriminatory practices in the nation’s approximately 89,000 political subdivisions have gone largely uninvestigated and challenged. Recent conflicts between communities of color and law enforcement have highlighted the failure of local governments in places like Ferguson, Missouri to adequately represent the interests of minority voters. These failures of representation, which occur in progressive states …

Political Gerrymandering: Was Elbridge Gerry Right, C. Daniel Chill

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Clearing The Political Thicket: Why Political Gerrymandering For Partisan Advantage Is Unconstitutional, Michael Parsons

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Who's Afraid Of The Hated Political Gerrymander?, Luis Fuentes-Rohwer

Articles by Maurer Faculty

The political gerrymander has few friends among scholars and commentators. Even a majority on the Supreme Court agreed that the practice violates constitutional and democratic norms. And yet, this is one of the few issues that the US. Supreme Court refuses to regulate. The justices mask their refusal to regulate this area on a professed inability to divine judicially-manageable standards. In turn, scholars offer new standards for the justices to consider. This is not only a mistake but also misguided. The history of the political question doctrine makes clear that the discovery of manageable standards has never controlled the Court's …

One Significant Step: How Reforms To Prison Districts Begin To Address Political Inequality, Erika L. Wood

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

Skyrocketing rates of incarceration over the last three decades have had profound and lasting effects on the political power and engagement of local communities throughout the United States. Aggressive enforcement practices and mandatory sentencing laws have an impact beyond the individuals who are arrested, convicted, and incarcerated. These policies have wide-ranging and enduring ripple effects throughout the communities that are most heavily impacted by criminal laws, predominantly urban and minority neighborhoods. Criminal justice policies broadly impact everything from voter turnout and engagement, to serving on juries, participating in popular protests, census data, and the way officials draw legislative districts. The …

In Re 2012 Legislative Districting: Maryland High Court Decision Exemplifies Lackluster Federal Guidance On Redistricting, Matthew Lagarde

Maryland Law Review

No abstract provided.

Tiered Personhood And The Excluded Voter, Atiba R. Ellis

Chicago-Kent Law Review

The modern discourse critiquing vote denial policies in the United States has taken two distinct paths. The first and more recent path has been to critique the effects of legislation like voter identification laws, narrowed early voting opportunities, and similar enactments to hyper-regulate the voting process, effecting, as some argue, the ability for the poor, the elderly, and minorities to vote. The second strain of this voter suppression discourse relates to the express exclusion of persons who have been convicted of felonies from the exercise of the franchise. While both vote denial by effect or by express disenfranchisement have raised …

Reynolds Reconsidered, Luis Fuentes-Rohwer, Guy-Uriel E. Charles

Articles by Maurer Faculty

No abstract provided.

The Recent History Of Gerrymandering In Florida: Revitalizing Davis V. Bandemer And Florida’S Constitutional Requirements On Redistricting, Devon Ombres

Washington and Lee Journal of Civil Rights and Social Justice

No abstract provided.

Abolish Districts, Corinna Barrett Lain

Schmooze 'tickets'

No abstract provided.

The Right Choice For Elections: How Choice Voting Will End Gerrymandering And Expand Minority Voting Rights, From City Councils To Congress, Rob Richie, Andrew Spencer

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

A Half-Century Of Virginia Redistricting Battles: Shifting From Rural Malapportionment To Voting Rights To Public Participation, Micah Altman, Michael P. Mcdonald

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Democrats At Doj: Why Partisan Use Of The Voting Rights Act Might Not Be So Bad After All, Ellen D. Katz

Articles

In notable ways, the ongoing dispute over redistricting in Texas offers a mirror image to one of the major redistricting battles of the last decade, only with Democratic and Republican roles reversed. In both Texas v. United States and Georgia v. Ashcroft, a state attorney general (AG) decided he would not ask the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) to approve new redistricting plans enacted in his state. In both cases, the state AGs were well aware that the Voting Rights Act (VRA) required them to obtain federal approval, known as preclearance, before changing any aspect of their state's election …

Looking For A Few Good Philosopher Kings: Political Gerrymandering As A Question Of Institutional Competence, Luis Fuentes-Rohwer

Articles by Maurer Faculty

The redistricting season is about to begin in full swing, and with it will come renewed calls for the federal courts, and particularly the U. S. Supreme Court, to aggressively review the work of the political branches. This is an intriguing puzzle. Since the early 1960’s, the federal courts have regulated questions of politics aggressively. They have done this even in the face of difficult questions of political representation. The courts have taken sides, to be sure, but these can only be described as acts of volition and will, not constitutional law. The leading case is Reynolds v. Sims. This …

"Now For A Clean Sweep!": Smiley V. Holm, Partisan Gerrymandering, And At-Large Congressional Elections, Benedict J. Schweigert

Michigan Law Review

The 1930 Census reduced Minnesota's apportionment in the U.S. House of Representatives from ten to nine, requiring the state to draw new congressional districts. The Republican-led state legislature passed a gerrymandered redistricting bill in an attempt to insulate its nine incumbents in the state's delegation from the party's expected loss of the statewide popular vote to the insurgent Farmer-Labor Party. When the Farmer-Labor Governor, Floyd B. Olson, vetoed the redistricting bill, the legislature claimed the bill could take effect without the governor's signature. In Smiley v. Holm, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that the veto was effective and that …

Ratification Of Reapportionment Plans Drawn By Redistricting Commissions, Poonam Kumar

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

Partisan gerrymandering is a danger that threatens the foundations of the American democratic structure. This Note argues that partisan gerrymandering must be eliminated in order to foster political competition and ensure government accountability. Without a judicial solution, redistricting commissions present a viable option to help cure the ills of partisan gerrymandering. This Note argues that automatic and mandatory state supreme court judicial review must be the process by which the redistricting plans drawn by these commissions are ratified. Automatic judicial review permits redistricting to remain a legislative task while giving the judiciary a quintessential judicial task. In addition, this Note …

Reviving The Right To Vote, Ellen D. Katz

Articles

Losers in partisan districting battles have long challenged the resulting districting plans under seemingly unrelated legal doctrines. They have filed lawsuits alleging malapportionment, racial gerrymandering, and racial vote dilution, and they periodically prevail. Many election law scholars worry about these lawsuits, claiming that they needlessly "racialize" fundamentally political disputes, distort important legal doctrines designed for other purposes, and provide an inadequate remedy for a fundamentally distinct electoral problem. I am not convinced. This Article argues that the application of distinct doctrines to invalidate or diminish what are indisputably partisan gerrymanders is not necessarily problematic, and that the practice may well …

Where Do We Draw The Line? Partisan Gerrymandering And The State Of Texas, Whitney M. Eaton

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Self-Defeating Minimalism, Adam B. Cox

Michigan Law Review First Impressions

Everyone wants a piece of Tom DeLay. The former majority leader is under investigation and indictment, and even the Supreme Court threatened last Term to undo one of his signal achievements. In 2003, DeLay orchestrated a highly unusual mid-decade revision of Texas’s congressional map. The revised map was a boon to Republicans, shifting the Texas congressional delegation from 15 Republicans and 17 Democrats to 21 Republicans and 11 Democrats. The map was attacked as an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander and a violation of the Voting Rights Act. When the Supreme Court agreed to hear those challenges in LULAC v. Perry, many …

Cultural Compactness, Daniel R. Oritz

Michigan Law Review First Impressions

The Supreme Court’s opinions in LULAC v. Perry, the Texas redistricting case, confounded expectation. While many believed that the Court would develop the law governing partisan gerrymandering in one direction or another, it did not. As exactly before, such claims are justiciable but there is no law to govern them. In other words, the courthouse doors are open, but until some plaintiff advances a novel theory persuasive to five justices, no claims will succeed. On the other hand, few expected the Court to make any major changes to doctrine under the Voting Rights Act and Shaw v. Reno. But LULAC …

This Way To The Egress And Other Reflections On Partisan Gerrymandering Claims In Light Of Lulac V. Perry, Bernard Grofman

Michigan Law Review First Impressions

After winning control of both houses of the legislature and the governorship, Texas Republicans eventually succeeded in redistricting Texas’s congressional seats in 2003, replacing a 2001 court-drawn plan. LULAC v. Perry reviewed a number of challenges to that second redistricting. The decision deals with a multiplicity of issues, including, most importantly, the standard for violations of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and the nature of tests for unconstitutional partisan gerrymandering. While there are some clear holdings in the case, several of them reflect different combinations of Justices in the majority and, since there are six different opinions, it …

Anthony Kennedy's Blind Quest, Scot Powe, Steve Bickerstaff

Michigan Law Review First Impressions

League of United Latin American Citizens [LULAC] v. Perry embraced, in the context of partisan gerrymandering, Felix Frankfurter’s conclusion that the Supreme Court should not enter the political thicket of legislative apportionment. Two years earlier in Vieth v. Jubelirer, the Court split 4–1–4 on the justiciability of partisan gerrymandering. O’Conner and the three conservatives held it was nonjusticiable. Each of the four moderate liberals offered a test showing it was justiciable. Kennedy dissented from the conservatives while simultaneously rejecting each of the four tests offered. He announced he was waiting for a better test. When far superior tests were offered …