DOCSLIB.ORG

Dr. Larry J. Sabato University of Virginia Center for Politics 465 Crestwood Drive Post Office Box 400806 Charlottesville, Virginia 22904

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Dr. Larry J. Sabato University of Virginia Center for Politics 465 Crestwood Drive Post Office Box 400806 Charlottesville, Virginia 22904 FEATURE CLE: SABATO'S CRYSTAL BALL CLE Credit: 1.0 Wednesday, June 18, 2014 1:15 p.m. - 2:15 p.m. Exhibit Hall I Northern Kentucky Convention Center Covington, Kentucky A NOTE CONCERNING THE PROGRAM MATERIALS The materials included in this Kentucky Bar Association Continuing Legal Education handbook are intended to provide current and accurate information about the subject matter covered. No representation or warranty is made concerning the application of the legal or other principles discussed by the instructors to any specific fact situation, nor is any prediction made concerning how any particular judge or jury will interpret or apply such principles. The proper interpretation or application of the principles discussed is a matter for the considered judgment of the individual legal practitioner. The faculty and staff of this Kentucky Bar Association CLE program disclaim liability therefore. Attorneys using these materials, or information otherwise conveyed during the program, in dealing with a specific legal matter have a duty to research original and current sources of authority. Printed by: Evolution Creative Solutions 7107 Shona Drive Cincinnati, Ohio 45237 Kentucky Bar Association TABLE OF CONTENTS The Presenter .................................................................................................................. i The End of Amendments? Why State Legislative Polarization Makes Constitutional Amendments Increasingly Unlikely ........................................................... 1 It's Time to Increase the Size of the House ..................................................................... 5 The 2020 Reapportionment and the Voting Rights Act .................................................. 11 14 for '14: Some Bold Predictions for the New Year ..................................................... 15 THE PRESENTER Dr. Larry J. Sabato University of Virginia Center for Politics 465 Crestwood Drive Post Office Box 400806 Charlottesville, Virginia 22904 DR. LARRY J. SABATO is the founder and director of the University of Virginia Center for Politics. He is also the University Professor of Politics at the University of Virginia, and has had visiting appointments at Oxford University and Cambridge University. A Rhodes Scholar, he received his doctorate from Oxford, and he is the author or editor of two dozen books on American politics. In 2013 Professor Sabato won an Emmy award for the television documentary Out of Order, which he produced to highlight the dysfunctional U.S. Senate. Professor Sabato directs the Center for Politics' Crystal Ball website, a leader in accurately predicting elections since its inception. In 2004, the Crystal Ball achieved a 99 percent accuracy rate in predicting all races for House, Senate, Governor and each state's Electoral College outcome. In 2006, the Pew Research Center and the Pew Charitable Trusts' Project for Excellence in Journalism recognized the Crystal Ball as the leader in the field of political predictors, noting that the site "came closer than any other of the top ten potential predictors this cycle." In 2008, the Crystal Ball came within one electoral vote of the exact tally in the Electoral College, while also correctly picking the result of every single gubernatorial and Senate race across the country. In 2010, the Crystal Ball was the first to forecast a solid Republican takeover of the House. While others were predicting a Romney victory in 2012, the Crystal Ball forecast a substantial Obama margin in the Electoral College, and ultimately missed just two states. The Crystal Ball had a combined 97 percent accuracy rate in forecasting the Electoral College, Senate, House and gubernatorial contests. Earlier this year, the Crystal Ball won a "Beast Best" award from The Daily Beast as one of the top political sites on the web. In October 2013, Prof. Sabato and the Center for Politics unveiled the Kennedy Half Century project. The project consisted of a New York Times bestselling book, The Kennedy Half-Century, a PBS documentary, a Massive Open Online Course (MOOC) available on Coursera and iTunes U, an app with the complete recordings and transcripts from Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63, and a website (www.thekennedyhalfcentury.com). i ii THE END OF AMENDMENTS? WHY STATE LEGISLATIVE POLARIZATION MAKES CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS INCREASINGLY UNLIKELY Thomas F. Schaller, Guest Columnist Reprinted with permission from Sabato's Crystal Ball, March 27, 2014 This year marks the centennial anniversary of the first class of popularly-elected U.S. Senators, as mandated by adoption of the 17th Amendment. A hundred years later, several current or former Republican members of Congress, including Todd Akin (MO), Paul Broun (GA), Pete Hoekstra (MI) and Jeff Flake (AZ), have indicated their support for returning the selection of U.S. Senators to state elites. Although the movement to repeal the 17th Amendment is likely to fizzle, the fact is plans to amend the Constitution are mostly a waste of time because, other than a widely popular and highly-unifying suggested change, it is probably almost impossible to ratify or even propose amendments in our highly-polarized nation and divided national government. Holding aside the ten amendments of the Bill of Rights – and an 11th regulating congressional compensation that, proposed more than two centuries ago as one of twelve originally proposed amendments, was belatedly ratified in 1992 as the 27th Amendment – only sixteen amendments that were not part of the constitutional bargain struck in 1787 have been proposed and ratified in the 226 years since the founders met in Philadelphia. That works out to one amendment about every fourteen years. After setting aside the unusual case of the 27th Amendment, that means almost forty-three years have passed – three times the average interval – since the last normal, proposed-then-ratified-soon- thereafter amendment was adopted: The 26th Amendment's extension of voting rights to those aged eighteen-to-twenty years old. The record between amendments is sixty-one years period between the 12th Amendment, which in 1804 corrected flaws in the presidential election process, and the landmark 13th Amendment, which abolished almost all forms of slavery in 1865. That sixty-one-year standard may soon fall. Indeed, is it politically possible to adopt a constitutional amendment in today's polarized America? Barring an extremely unlikely second constitutional convention, two-thirds of members of both chambers of Congress are required to propose any amendment, which seems virtually unattainable. But even if congressional supermajorities could agree, the bigger hurdle might be ratification by state legislatures, which have become almost as polarized as the national government. The number of split-party legislatures, for example, has steadily declined over the past three decades. Because most state legislators and governors are elected in presidential midterm cycles, it's instructive to look at state results following midterms. As shown in Table 1 below, the number of split-party state legislatures hovered around eleven or twelve from 1998 to 2006 – presidential and odd-year elections move the numbers a bit in between – but dipped to eight both prior to 2008 (not depicted) and as a result of the 2010 elections. 1 Table 1: State legislative chamber control, following recent midterm elections Sources: Washington Post (1998), Polidata.org (2002, 2006), NCSL (2010) Following the 2012 cycle (also not depicted), the number of split state legislatures fell further to five (now six after the 2013 statewide elections in Virginia gave Democrats the tiebreaker to control the state's senate), which is about half the number from a decade- and-a-half ago. The 1998 midterms may have been the tipping point at which control over state legislatures began to stabilize. At the time, National Conference of State Legislatures analyst William Pound declared 1998 a "status quo election" in which fewer state legislatures had changed hands in any election going back to 1988. The fact that just six of forty-nine partisan legislatures – as usual, holding Nebraska's unicameral and non-partisan legislature aside – are split is relevant to the amendment ratification process for two, related reasons. First, and most obviously, the rise of unified state legislatures reflects the rising blue/red polarization evident throughout American electoral politics. In the past five presidential elections, forty states have voted all five times for either the Republican nominee or the Democratic nominee, and the number of divided U.S. Senate delegations today is almost half of what it was four decades ago. And as Table 2 shows below, state election results increasingly mirror national ones. Table 2: Unified state party control, following recent midterm elections Sources: Washington Post (1998), Polidata.org (2002, 2006), NCSL (2010) Table 2 reports the number of unified state governments, including control of the governorship: That is, those in which Republicans hold the governorship and both legislative chambers, or Democrats have unified control. Again using results following midterm cycles, notice that the number of unified state governments reached thirty-one following the 2010 midterms. Although this figure dropped slightly as a result of the 2012 presidential and 2013 off-year elections, the number of unified governments right now is higher than at any time going back to the start of the Eisenhower Administration. "A lot of it is the top of the ticket
Load more

Recommended publications
  • STATE APPORTIONMENT of CORPORATE INCOME (Formulas for Tax Year 2021 -- As of January 1, 2021)
    STATE APPORTIONMENT OF CORPORATE INCOME (Formulas for tax year 2021 -- as of January 1, 2021) ALABAMA * Double wtd Sales MONTANA * 3 Factor ALASKA* 3 Factor NEBRASKA Sales ARIZONA * Sales/Double wtd Sales NEVADA No State Income Tax ARKANSAS * Sales NEW HAMPSHIRE Double wtd Sales CALIFORNIA * Sales NEW JERSEY Sales COLORADO * Sales NEW MEXICO * 3 Factor/Sales CONNECTICUT Sales NEW YORK Sales DELAWARE Sales NORTH CAROLINA * Sales FLORIDA Double wtd Sales NORTH DAKOTA * 3 Factor/Sales GEORGIA Sales OHIO N/A (2) HAWAII * 3 Factor OKLAHOMA 3 Factor IDAHO * Double wtd Sales OREGON Sales ILLINOIS * Sales PENNSYLVANIA Sales INDIANA Sales RHODE ISLAND Sales IOWA Sales SOUTH CAROLINA Sales KANSAS * 3 Factor SOUTH DAKOTA No State Income Tax KENTUCKY * Sales TENNESSEE Triple wtd Sales LOUISIANA Sales TEXAS Sales MAINE * Sales UTAH Sales MARYLAND (3) 75.0% Sales, 12.5% Property VERMONT Double wtd Sales & Payroll VIRGINIA Double wtd Sales/Sales MASSACHUSETTS Sales/Double wtd Sales WASHINGTON No State Income Tax MICHIGAN Sales WEST VIRGINIA * Double wtd Sales MINNESOTA Sales WISCONSIN * Sales MISSISSIPPI Sales/Other (1) WYOMING No State Income Tax MISSOURI * Sales DIST. OF COLUMBIA Sales Source: Compiled by FTA from state sources. Notes: The formulas listed are for general manufacturing businesses. Some industries have a special formula different from the one shown. * State has adopted substantial portions of the UDITPA (Uniform Division of Income Tax Purposes Act). Slash (/) separating two formulas indicates taxpayer option or specified by state rules. 3 Factor = sales, property, and payroll equally weighted. Double wtd Sales = 3 factors with sales double-weighted Sales = single sales factor (1) Mississippi provides different apportionment formulas based on specific type of business.
    [Show full text]
  • Partisan Gerrymandering and the Construction of American Democracy
    0/-*/&4637&: *ODPMMBCPSBUJPOXJUI6OHMVFJU XFIBWFTFUVQBTVSWFZ POMZUFORVFTUJPOT UP MFBSONPSFBCPVUIPXPQFOBDDFTTFCPPLTBSFEJTDPWFSFEBOEVTFE 8FSFBMMZWBMVFZPVSQBSUJDJQBUJPOQMFBTFUBLFQBSU $-*$,)&3& "OFMFDUSPOJDWFSTJPOPGUIJTCPPLJTGSFFMZBWBJMBCMF UIBOLTUP UIFTVQQPSUPGMJCSBSJFTXPSLJOHXJUI,OPXMFEHF6OMBUDIFE ,6JTBDPMMBCPSBUJWFJOJUJBUJWFEFTJHOFEUPNBLFIJHIRVBMJUZ CPPLT0QFO"DDFTTGPSUIFQVCMJDHPPE Partisan Gerrymandering and the Construction of American Democracy In Partisan Gerrymandering and the Construction of American Democracy, Erik J. Engstrom offers an important, historically grounded perspective on the stakes of congressional redistricting by evaluating the impact of gerrymandering on elections and on party control of the U.S. national government from 1789 through the reapportionment revolution of the 1960s. In this era before the courts supervised redistricting, state parties enjoyed wide discretion with regard to the timing and structure of their districting choices. Although Congress occasionally added language to federal- apportionment acts requiring equally populous districts, there is little evidence this legislation was enforced. Essentially, states could redistrict largely whenever and however they wanted, and so, not surpris- ingly, political considerations dominated the process. Engstrom employs the abundant cross- sectional and temporal varia- tion in redistricting plans and their electoral results from all the states— throughout U.S. history— in order to investigate the causes and con- sequences of partisan redistricting. His analysis
    [Show full text]
  • Districting Principles for 2010 and Beyond (In Addition to Population Equality and the Voting Rights Act)
    April 18, 2019 Districting Principles for 2010 and Beyond (In addition to Population Equality and the Voting Rights Act) This webpage compares districting principles, or criteria, used by each state as it redrew legislative and congressional districts following the 2010 Census. It also includes new principles adopted by Colorado, Michigan, Missouri, New York, Ohio, and Utah for the 2020 cycle. The webpage begins with a summary table, in which readers can see at a glance what principles have been used by each state. The table is followed by relevant constitutional, statutory, and other excerpts for each state that determine the principles it uses. For more information, contact Wendy Underhill. Preserve House Preserve Preserve Cores of Avoid Not Nested in Political Communities Prior Pairing Not Favor Favor Senate or Contiguous Compact Subdivisions of Interest Districts Incumbents Incumbent Party Competitive Congress All States 50 40 44 26 11 12 16 16 5 19 Alabama C, L C, L L C, L C, L Alaska L L L L L Arkansas L L L L L L Arizona C, L C, L C, L C, L C, L C, L L California C, L C, L C, L C, L C, L C, L L Colorado C, L C, L C, L C, L C, L C, L C, L Connecticut L L Delaware L L L Florida C, L C, L C, L C, L C, L Georgia C, L C, L C, L C, L C, L April 18, 2019 Preserve House Preserve Preserve Cores of Avoid Not Nested in Political Communities Prior Pairing Not Favor Favor Senate or Contiguous Compact Subdivisions of Interest Districts Incumbents Incumbent Party Competitive Congress Hawaii C, L C, L C, L C, L C, L L Idaho C, L C, L C, L C, L
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Apportionment and Redistricting: Asking Geographic Questions To
    Apportionment and Redistricting: Asking geographic questions to address political issues https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/89/United_States_House_of_Representatives%2C_2017.svg Gerrymandered district or inkblot test? http://allthatsinteresting.com/fourth-district-of-illinois-map Gerrymandered district Inkblot test Nope! It’s Maryland’s 3rd Congressional District. Described by a federal judge as “reminiscent of a broken -winged pterodactyl,” Maryland’s 3rd Congressional District lies (flightless) across the middle of the state. Impressive gerrymandering, Maryland! https://www.benjerry.com/whats-new/2017/04/district-or-inkblot-quiz A side-by-side comparison of Congressional district maps from Duke mathematician Jonathan Mattingly. The top map is from 2012 and the middle map is from 2016. They were both created by Republican state lawmakers. The bottom map was created by Tom Ross's bipartisan commission of retired judges. To the right you can see the seats generated by these maps. http://wunc.org/post/non-partisan-redistricting-possible-former-judge-and-mathematician-think-so#stream/0 1 When asked to describe the process of apportionment and redistricting, an audience can find it challenging, whether they are students or senior citizens. What do we really remember from civics or government class? The National Council for the Social Studies (2013) states that “in a constitutional democracy productive civic engagement requires knowledge of the history, principles, and foundations of our American democracy, and the ability to participate in civic and democratic processes”. However, it is one thing to study the institutions described in the U.S. Constitution and quite another to try and assess whether consent of the governed, separation of powers, and legitimate authority are truly guiding our institutions, including courts, legislatures, and executive branch agencies.
    [Show full text]
  • Right to Vote and Judicial Enforcement of Section Two of the Fourteenth Amendment Arthur Earl Bonfield
    Cornell Law Review Volume 46 Article 5 Issue 1 Fall 1960 Right to Vote and Judicial Enforcement of Section Two of the Fourteenth Amendment Arthur Earl Bonfield Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/clr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Arthur Earl Bonfield, Right to Vote and Judicial Enforcement of Section Two of the Fourteenth Amendment , 46 Cornell L. Rev. 108 (1960) Available at: http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/clr/vol46/iss1/5 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Cornell Law Review by an authorized administrator of Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE RIGHT TO VOTE AND JUDICIAL ENFORCEMENT OF SECTION TWO OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT* Arthur Earl Bonfieldf I. THE PROBLEM One of the fundamental challenges of our day is the preservation of our civil and political liberties from the encroachments of private and public bodies. To this end we set up civil rights commissions, enact civil rights legislation, and otherwise attempt to enforce those rights politically as well as in the courts. Arguably the most fundamental of all these rights we enjoy is the right to vote. The possession of this privilege has made us a fortunate people in that we live under a government responsible to, and chosen by, those whose society it orders. The protection of the franchise as it is conceived in our framework of government should therefore be of great concern to us all, causing us to resist with utmost vigor any diminu- tion of this right beyond that constitutionally sanctioned.
    [Show full text]
  • Observing Sudan's 2010 National Elections
    Observing Sudan’s 2010 National Elections April 11–18, 2010 Final Report Waging Peace. Fighting Disease. Building Hope. Observing Sudan’s 2010 National Elections April 11–18, 2010 Final Report One Copenhill 453 Freedom Parkway Atlanta, GA 30307 (404) 420-5188 Fax (404) 420-5196 www.cartercenter.org The Carter Center Contents Foreword . .1 Postelection Developments ..................47 Executive Summary .........................3 Counting . 47 Historical and Political Tabulation . 49 Background of Sudan . .8 Election Results . .50 Census . .10 Electoral Dispute Resolution . 51 Political Context of the April Election . 10 Darfur and Other Special Topics .............54 Overview of the Carter Darfur . .54 Center Observation Mission .................13 Enfranchising the Displaced . 55 Legal Framework of the Sudan Elections.......15 Political Developments Following the Election . 56 Electoral System . 17 Census in South Kordofan Participation of Women, Minorities, and Southern Sudan . .57 and Marginalized Groups. 17 Pastoralists and the Election . 57 Election Management . 18 Bashir’s Threats . 57 Boundary Delimitation . .20 Conclusions and Recommendations ...........59 Voter Registration and the General Election Recommendations . 59 Pre-election Period . 24 Southern Sudan Referendum Voter Registration . .24 Recommendations . .70 Voter Education . 30 Abyei Referendum Candidates, Parties, and Campaigns . .31 Recommendations . .80 The Media . 35 Appendix A: Acknowledgments . .81 Civil Society . .36 Appendix B: List of Delegation and Staff ......83 Electoral Dispute Resolution. 37 Appendix C: Terms and Abbreviations ........86 Election-Related Violence. 39 Appendix D: The Carter Center in Sudan .....87 The Election Period . .40 Appendix E: Carter Center Statements Poll Opening . .40 on the Sudan Elections .....................89 Polling. 42 Appendix F: Carter Center Observer Poll Closing. 45 Deployment Plan .........................169 Appendix G: Registration and Election Day Checklists ...........................170 Appendix H: Letter of Invitation .
    [Show full text]
  • Legislative Apportionment: Multimember Districts and Fair Representation Waltfr L
    [Vol.120 LEGISLATIVE APPORTIONMENT: MULTIMEMBER DISTRICTS AND FAIR REPRESENTATION WALTFR L. CARPE]ETI t I. INTRODUCTION In 1962 the Supreme Court overturned without expressly over- ruling a line of cases ' in which it had refused to reach the merits of many questions raised by legislative apportionment.' In Baker v. Carr3 the Court found that federal courts had jurisdiction of the subject mat- ter ' and that malapportionment claims were justiciable,5 and opened tA.B. 1967, Stanford University; J.D. 1970, University of California, Berkeley. Member, Alaska and California Bars. I E.g., Matthews v. Handley, 361 U.S. 127 (1959) (mem.) ; Hartsfield v. Sloan, 357 U.S. 916 (1958) (mem.); Radford v. Gary, 352 U.S. 991 (1957) (mem.); Kidd v. McCanless, 352 U.S. 920 (1956) (mem.) ; Anderson v. Jordan, 343 U.S. 912 (1952) (mee.) ; Tedesco v. Board of Supervisors, 339 U.S. 940 (1950) (mem.) ; MacDougall v. Green, 335 U.S. 281 (1948) (mem.); Colegrove v. Green, 328 U.S. 549 (1946). The questions facing the Court in each of these cases were whether federal courts had jurisdiction of cases concerning legislative apportionment and whether the issues were justiciable. They were answered in the negative. Colegrove, supra, was the leading case in this line (subsequent cases routinely cited it in per curiam opinions), although a majority of the Justices taking part in that case were of the opinion that the issues were justiciable. The plurality opinion of Justice Frankfurter-com- monly cited for the proposition that the issues were not justiciable-represented the views of only three Justices.
    [Show full text]
  • The False Promise of One Person, One Vote
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by University of Michigan School of Law Michigan Law Review Volume 102 Issue 2 2003 The False Promise of One Person, One Vote Grant M. Hayden Hofstra University School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr Part of the Election Law Commons, and the Law and Economics Commons Recommended Citation Grant M. Hayden, The False Promise of One Person, One Vote, 102 MICH. L. REV. 213 (2003). Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol102/iss2/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Michigan Law Review at University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Michigan Law Review by an authorized editor of University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE FALSE PROMISE OF ONE PERSON, ONE VOTE Grant M. Hayden* TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................ 213 I. QUANTITATIVE VOTE DILUTION AND ONE PERSON, ONE VOTE .............................................................................................. 217 A. The Legal Status of Population and Voting ........................ 217 B. The Popular Appeal of "One Person, One Vote" .............. 222 C. Justificationsfo r the One Person, One Vote Standard ...... 225 1. Some Traditional Justificationsfo r the Standard ......... 225 2. Limitations and Criticisms of the Standard .................. 230 II. INTERPERSONAL UTILITY COMPARISONS ................................ 236 A. The Problem of In terpersonal Utility Comparisons........... 236 B. Value Judgments in In terpersonal Comparisons ................ 244 III. IMPLICATIONS FOR VOTING RIGHTS ......................................... 247 A. Why Th ere Is No thing Objective About One Person, One Vote ...............................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • A Consideration of the History and Present Status of Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment
    Fordham Law Review Volume 30 Issue 1 Article 4 1961 A Consideration of the History and Present Status of Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment George David Zuckerman Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation George David Zuckerman, A Consideration of the History and Present Status of Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment, 30 Fordham L. Rev. 93 (1961). Available at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol30/iss1/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. It has been accepted for inclusion in Fordham Law Review by an authorized editor of FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. For more information, please contact [email protected]. A Consideration of the History and Present Status of Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment Cover Page Footnote Member of the New York Bar. This article is available in Fordham Law Review: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol30/iss1/4 A CONSIDERATION OF THE HISTORY AND PRESENT STATUS OF SECTION 2 OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT GEORGE DAVID ZUCKERMAN* Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But vwhen the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any vay abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of reprezentation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.' S ECTION 2 of the fourteenth amendment- has been much of an enigma in American constitutional history.
    [Show full text]
  • Apportionment and Redistricting Following the 2020 Census
    INSIGHTi Apportionment and Redistricting Following the 2020 Census Updated September 29, 2021 The census, apportionment, and congressional redistricting are interrelated processes that occur every decade. The U.S. Constitution provides that a decennial census determines the distribution of U.S. House seats across states. Dividing House seats across states is known as apportionment (or reapportionment). Each state must receive one House seat and additional seats are distributed proportionally based on state population size. States then engage in redistricting, creating or redrawing geographic subdivisions with relatively equal-sized populations for each House district. Timelines for the census and apportionment are provided in federal statute and generally occur as scheduled every decade. The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, however, affected 2020 census field operations and delivery of apportionment figures, and concerns remain about timing for the redistricting processes that follow. This Insight provides background on the typical timing of the census, apportionment, and redistricting, as well as a brief discussion of recent census operational changes and proposals, particularly those related to congressional apportionment and redistricting. Typical Timing—Census, Apportionment, and Redistricting Figure 1 illustrates a timeline of the typical census, apportionment, and redistricting processes. Federal statute requires that April 1 of any year ending in “0” marks the official decennial census date. A count known as the apportionment population, which reflects the total resident population in each state, is typically used to distribute House seats. Within nine months of the decennial census date (December 31 of the year ending in “0”), the Secretary of Commerce is to report the apportionment population to the President; the Census Bureau has often released apportionment counts publicly at about the same time.
    [Show full text]
  • Lawsuits, Thereby Weakening Ballot Integrity
    No. ______, Original In the Supreme Court of the United States STATE OF TEXAS, Plaintiff, v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, STATE OF GEORGIA, STATE OF MICHIGAN, AND STATE OF WISCONSIN, Defendants. MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE BILL OF COMPLAINT Ken Paxton* Attorney General of Texas Brent Webster First Assistant Attorney General of Texas Lawrence Joseph Special Counsel to the Attorney General of Texas Office of the Attorney General P.O. Box 12548 (MC 059) Austin, TX 78711-2548 [email protected] (512) 936-1414 * Counsel of Record i TABLE OF CONTENTS Pages Motion for leave to File Bill of Complaint ................. 1 No. ______, Original In the Supreme Court of the United States STATE OF TEXAS, Plaintiff, v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, STATE OF GEORGIA, STATE OF MICHIGAN, AND STATE OF WISCONSIN, Defendants. MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE BILL OF COMPLAINT Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1251(a) and this Court’s Rule 17, the State of Texas respectfully seeks leave to file the accompanying Bill of Complaint against the States of Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (collectively, the “Defendant States”) challenging their administration of the 2020 presidential election. As set forth in the accompanying brief and complaint, the 2020 election suffered from significant and unconstitutional irregularities in the Defendant States: • Non-legislative actors’ purported amendments to States’ duly enacted election laws, in violation of the Electors Clause’s vesting State legislatures with plenary authority regarding the appointment of presidential electors. • Intrastate differences in the treatment of voters, with more favorable allotted to voters – whether lawful or unlawful – in areas administered by local government under Democrat control and with populations with higher ratios of Democrat voters than other areas of Defendant States.
    [Show full text]
  • Participation in Elections for President and Representatives— Percent of Voting-Age Population 276 Elections Political Campaig
    276 Elections Figure 8.1 Participation in Elections for President and Representatives— Percent of Voting-Age Population President U.S. Representatives Percent Percent 70 70 60 60 50 50 40 40 30 30 20 20 10 10 0 0 1972 1976 1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 1972 1976 1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 Source: Chart prepared by U.S. Bureau of the Census. For data, see Table 485. Figure 8.2 Political Campaign Receipts Democratic receipts, net Millions of dollars Republican receipts, net 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 1981–82 1983–84 1985–86 1987–88 1989–90 1991–92 1993–94 1995–96 Source: Chart prepared by U.S. Bureau of the Census. For data, see Table 488. U.S. Census Bureau, the Official StatisticsTM Statistical Abstract of the United States: 1998 Sep. 25, 1998 Section 8 Elections This section relates primarily to presiden- tial, congressional, and gubernatorial elec- In Brief tions. Also presented are summary tables on congressional legislation; state legisla- Percent of voting-age population tures; Black, Hispanic, and female office- voting for Representatives: holders; population of voting age; voter 1992. 50.8% participation; and campaign finances. 1994. 36.0% Official statistics on federal elections, col- Voter registration sources 1995–96: lected by the Clerk of the House, are Motor vehicle offices 33.1% published biennially in Statistics of the By mail 29.7% Presidential and Congressional Election Public assistance offices 6.3% and Statistics of the Congressional Elec- State designated sites 4.2% tion. Federal and state elections data ap- Disability services 0.4% pear also in America Votes, a biennial Armed Forces offices 0.2% volume published by Congressional Other 26.1% Quarterly, Inc., Washington, DC.
    [Show full text]