DOCSLIB.ORG

Public Hearing Before New Jersey Redistricting

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Public Hearing Before New Jersey Redistricting You are Viewing an Archived Copy from the New Jersey State Library You are Viewing an Archived Copy\~\l\~'\'\\1'\'\i\\'\"~\'\\~\\\ NEWfrom JERSEY the New STATE Jersey LIBRARY State Library , 3 3009 _005~1_50~ PUB L I C H EAR I N G before NEW JERSEY REDISTRICTING COMMISSION "To accept testimony from interested groups and members of the public regarding the establishment of Congressional districts for New Jersey for use during the 1990s" February 25, 1992 7:00 p.m. Camden County Community College Blackwood, New Jersey MEMBERS OF COMMISSION PRESENT: Dr. Alan Rosenthal, Chairman Assemblyman Wayne R. Bryant Assemblyman Robert G. Smith Roger Bodman Mayor Gerald Calabrese Joseph Gonzalez Robert Jablonski Isabel Miranda-Mazzucca Glenn R. Paulsen Annette Quijano, Esq. ALSO PRESENT: Frank J. Parisi Office of Legislative Services Secretary, New Jersey Redistricting Commission * * * * * * * * * * Hearing Recorded and Transcribed by Office of Legislative Services Public Information Office Hearing Unit 162 West State Street CN 068 Trenton, New Jersey 08625 17(/090 L !)-/ L/ /9 9;) ~ v· 3 c _ / You are Viewing an Archived Copy from the New Jersey State Library :. 'f ~-, You are Viewing an Archived Copy A'._~from the New Jersey State Library -= -= ~?--=: NFli' JERSEY PEDISTRICTING COMMISSION ALAN ROSEt-;iHAL ~:~:S~AiIVE OFFIC~ S~ILD:NG. CN 066 F"RANK J. ;;.;;,:s: Chairman TRENTO~. NEW JERSEY Oa625-0068 Se~re:ary (609) 292-9106 COM MIS S ION NOT 1 C E TO: MEMBERS OF THE NEW JERSEY REDISTRICTING COMMISSION FROM: ALAN ROSENTHAL, CHAIRMAN SUBJECT: COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING - February 25,1992 The public may address comments and questions to Frank J. Parisi. Commission Secretary, or Kathleen Lieblang, Assistant Secretary, at (609) 292-9106. The New Jersey Redistricting Commission will hold its final public meeting on Tuesday, February 25, 1992 at 7 p.m. in the Seminar Room of the Computer Integrated Manufacturing (CIM) building, Camden County Community College, Blackwood, New Jersey. The hearing will conclude at 10 p.m. The purpose of the public meeting will be to accept testimony from interested groups and members of the public regarding the establishment of Congressional districts for New Jersey for use during the 1990s. To enable as many persons to speak as possible, testimony ""ill be limi ted to 15 persons or to individual representatives of 15 groups who mav speak for up to 10 minutes. Persons wishing to testify at the public hearing must register in advance by contacting the Commission Secretary by telephone or in person before the start of the meeting. Such persons will be registered on a first-come basis. Written testimony may be sent to the Secretary and will be accepted at any time. (OVER) Issued 2118/92 You are Viewing an Archived Copy from the New Jersey State Library '\e\\ jersp," Redlstricllng Comm:ssio,'1 Pa~e ~ February 18, 199: DIRECTIONS TO CAMDEN COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE: From Northern New Jersev (via New Jersey Turnpike): Exit at Exit 3. Follow directions to Route 42 South (toward Atlantic City). Exit Blackwood/Clementon Exit. Turn right a bottom of the exit ramp (onto BlackwoodlClementon Road). Turn right at first traffic light (onto Erial Road). Proceed to the next traffic light and make right (onto Little Gloucester Road). One-half mile down road, on right-hand side. are four en trances to the College. From Eastern New Jerse\': From Route 70. take Springdale Road south approximately 9 rr.iles (NOTE: road name changes to Whi te Horse Road, Laurel Road and then College Drive) until traffic light at Little Gloucester Road and Peter Cheeseman Roads. Turn left onto Peter Cheeseman Road. Follow to Taft entrance to College. From Southern New I ersev: Take Route 42 or the Black Horse Pike north. Get off at Route 168/Blackwood/Sicklerville exit. Tum right at bottom of the ramp. Turn right at the first road (onto Little Gloucester Road). The entrance to the College is one mile down the road on the right side. PLEASE NOTE: Free parking is available both in front of the ClM building (Taft Lot A) and in back of the building. You are Viewing an Archived Copy from the New Jersey State Library §§1-9 C.19:46-6 to 19:46-14 §10 Approp. §11- Repealer §12 Note to §§1-10 P.L.1991, CHAPTER 510. approved January 21.1992 1991 Assembly No. 5307 (Second Reprint) AN ACT establishing the New Jersey Redistricting Commission. supplementing Ti tIe 19 of the Revised Statutes 2(andJL 2 repealing sections 1 and 2 of P. L.1982. c.1 2and making an appropriation2 . BE IT ENACTED by the Senate and General Assembly of the State of New Jersey: 1. There is hereby established the New Jersey Redistric ting Commission, which shall establish the Congressional districts for use in the decade of the 1990s. 2. a. The commission shall consist of 13 members. The members of the commission shall be appointed with due consideration to geographic, ethnic and racial diversity and in the manner provided herein. b. There shall first be appointed 12 as follows: (1) two members to be appointed by the President of the Senate; (2) two members to be appointed by the Speaker of the General Assembly; (3) two members to be appointed by the minority leader of the Senate; (4) two members to be appointed by the minority leader of the General Assembly; and (5) four members, two to be appointed by the chairman of the State committee of the political party whose candidate for Governor received the largest numbers of votes at the most recent gubernatorial election and two to be appointed by the chairman of the State committee of the political party whose candidate for Governor received the next largest number of votes at that eIec tion. Appointments to the commission under this subsection shall be made as soon as practicable after the enactment of this act but not later than the seventh day after enactment and shall be certified by the appointing authorities to the Secretary of State as soon as practicable thereafter but no later than the fifth day after the appointments are made. c. There shall then be appointed one member, to serve as an independent member, who shall not have held elected public or party office in this State at any time during the three year period immediately prior to appointment to the commission. The EXPLANATION--Hatter enclosed in bold-faced brackets (thus] in the above bill is not enacted and is intended.to be omitted in the law. Matter underlined ~ is new matter. ~atter enclosed in superscript numerals has been adopted as follows: 2 Assembly ASG committee amendments adopted January B. 1992. Assembly floor amendments adopted January B. 1992. You are Viewing an Archived Copy from the New Jersey State Library independent member shall be appointed by the previously appointed members of the commission as follows: the members appointed by the appointing officials of the political party whose candidate for Governor received the largest number of votes at the preceding gubernatorial election shall as a group select three nominees meeting the foregoing qualifications. and the members appointed by the appointing officials of the political party whose candidate for Governor received the next largest number of votes at that election shall do the same. If one person is nominated by both groups, then that person shall be the independent member, and if more than one person is nominated by both groups. the previous appointees shall by lot choose one of them to be the independent member. If no person is nominated by both groups, the members shall elect the independent member by ballot upon the vote of seven of the previously appointed members. Appointment to the commission of the independent member under this subsection shall be made as soon as practicable but no later than the seventh day after the appointment of the other members of the commission and the certification shall be made as soon as practicable thereafter but no later than the fifth day after the appointment is made. Once selected. the independent member shall serve as chairman of the commission. If the other members are unable to appoint an independent member within the time allowed therefor. the appointment of those other members shall be void and each of the appointing officials shall. as soon as practicable. appoint to be members of the commission persons other than those originally selected to be members and the selection process of the independent member shall proceed again as provided for by this section. 2d. No person shall serve as a member of the commission who is a member of the Congress of the United States or a Congressional emplovee or has served as such during the one-vear period prior to the appointment of the members of the commission. 2 3. The commission shall meet to organize as soon as may be practicable after the appointment of the independent member but not later than February 15. 1992. At the organizational meeting the members of the commission shall determine such organizational ma t t ers as they deem appropriat e. Thereafter. a meeting of the commission may be called by the chairman or upon the request of seven members. and seven members of the commission shall constitute a quorum at any meeting thereof for the purpose of taking any action. Vacancies in the membership of the commission occurring prior to the certification by the commission of Congressional districts or during any period in which the districts established by the commission may be or are under challenge in the courts of this State or the courts of the United States shall be filled within five days of their occurrence in the same marmer as the original appointments were made.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Briefing Paper Non-Commission
    Briefing Paper: Accepting Publicly Submitted Redistricting Plans for the Districting and Apportionment Commission by Rachel Weiss, Research Analyst May 2011 Introduction It is likely that individuals and interested groups will develop redistricting maps for the Districting and Apportionment Commission's consideration. It is also likely that the commission will want to review some of these plans more seriously than others. Given these realities, having policies established that specify when and in what manner an individual or interest group may submit a plan will allow the commission to manage its most limited resource: time. This paper is designed to help commissioners to develop an understanding of the issue, to provide background on how other states with similarly structured commissions handle redistricting plans submitted by the public, and to offer questions the commissioners should consider before adopting a policy to guide public submissions. At a minimum, the commission should accept maps -- computer generated or not, partial or statewide -- from interested individuals and organizations and enter those received into the permanent record, as with any other type of public comment. However, commissioners might also want to use a public submission -- or part of one -- as one of several plans on which it solicits public comment in a series of statewide public hearings or as the one it ultimately submits to the Legislature. In that case, the commission should consider adopting policies to guide submission of the plans from individuals and interested groups. In addition to helping staff and commissioners budget time, well-considered policies will help the public understand when and how to submit maps, including the requested formats.
    [Show full text]
  • A Look at the California Redistricting Commission
    ELECTION LAW JOURNAL Volume 11, Number 4, 2012 # Mary Ann Liebert, Inc. DOI: 10.1089/elj.2012.1148 Adventures in Redistricting: A Look at the California Redistricting Commission Karin Mac Donald ABSTRACT California’s Voters FIRST Act created the Citizens Redistricting Commission and with it provided a unique opportunity to observe the implementation of one of the most challenging political processes: the creation of electoral districts by a body of non-elected voters. Despite many predictions and accusations to the con- trary, this first-time experiment in participatory democracy experienced remarkably few glitches while achieving a successful outcome. This article provides an overview of the many factors and actors that played significant roles in this reform effort, and provides participant-observations illuminating some strengths and weaknesses of the process. he successful process of redistricting for its transparency3 and openness to public input,4 T California via the independent Citizen Redis- despite multiple lawsuits that unsuccessfully chal- tricting Commission (CRC)1 has prompted other lenged its districts,5 and an unsuccessful referendum jurisdictions to consider whether a move away in November 2012 to overturn the state senate plan.6 from drawing lines by its legislative bodies might There has already been some scholarship about be advisable.2 The CRC’s work has been praised the 2011 California Redistricting,7 most of it Karin Mac Donald is the director of the California Statewide Data- process-that-puts-voters-first > (remarks by California For- base and Election Administration Research Center at the Univer- ward, one of the sponsors of the Voters FIRST Act, on the sity of California, Berkeley Law, Berkeley, CA, and the owner and CRC’s successful implementation and transparent process).
    [Show full text]
  • Redistricting Commissions Flyer
    Make Every Voice Count With REDISTRICTING COMMISSIONS Independent redistricting commissions give communities the ability to be at the decision-making table and be heard. In 2020, every American should be counted in the Census. In 2021, each state will use those new census numbers to redraw the voting districts for congressional lines, state legislative lines, and local election districts. In most states, politicians and parties draw the lines. In states that have adopted redistricting commissions, the line drawing process is more likely to hear all community voices, be open and transparent, and allow all votes to count. “We've got to end the “That's all we're practice of drawing our asking for: an end to congressional districts the antidemocratic so that politicians can and un-American pick their voters, and practice of not the other way gerrymandering around. Let a congressional bipartisan group do it.” districts.” - President Barack Obama - President Ronald Reagan Struck Down 11.1% When When Struck Down 38.3% COURT Politicians INTERVENTION Independent 36% and Parties Commissions UPHELD Upheld Draw Maps 61.7% Draw Maps 89% Upheld 88.9% In states where politicians are in In states with politically balanced charge, 36% of maps are struck down independent commissions, 89% of maps as illegal or drawn by courts due to a are upheld by courts or not challenged in failure to approve districts. the first place. District maps are often drawn in secret District maps are drawn in public, with by incumbents and the party in power. real opportunities for public input, and inclusive of all voices.
    [Show full text]
  • Designing a Transparent and Ethical Redistricting Process: a Guide to Ensuring That the Redistricting Process Is Fair, Open, and Accessible
    Designing a Transparent and Ethical Redistricting Process: A Guide to Ensuring that the Redistricting Process is Fair, Open, and Accessible LWV Approved Logo Artwork File LWV Logo #1 Approved 5.2018 RGB Version This artwork for RGB use only r0 g86 b150 r190 g15 b52 This document and artwork/logos © 2018 League of Women Voters. All rights reserved. Unauthorized use prohibited. League of Women Voters (LWV) copyright materials may not be reproduced in whole or in part by persons, organizations or corporations other than LWV, its affiliates, divisions and units without the prior written permission of an authorized officer of LWV. Refer to the LWV Brand Standards document for proper logo use and specifications. 2 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This guide was written by Christopher Lamar and Delaney Marsco, with assistance from Danny Li. Thank you to Ruth Greenwood, Annabelle Harless, and Celina Stewart for their feedback, and to Jane Ignacio for designing the report. The materials and information contained in this guide provide general information only and not legal advice. Providing this material does not create an attorney-client relationship and is not a substitute for legal advice from a qualified attorney tailored to a specific jurisdiction’s or state’s laws. Experts at the Campaign Legal Center are always available to provide tailored advice. Please feel free to contact us to discuss your state. You can reach us at [email protected], (202) 736-2200, or www.campaignlegalcenter.org. The nonpartisan Campaign Legal Center advances democracy through the law at the federal, state and local levels, fighting for every American’s rights to responsive government and a fair opportunity to participate in and affect the democratic process.
    [Show full text]
  • Arizona State Legislature V. Arizona Independent Redistricting Comm'n
    (Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2014 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus ARIZONA STATE LEGISLATURE v. ARIZONA INDEPENDENT REDISTRICTING COMMISSION ET AL. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA No. 13–1314. Argued March 2, 2015—Decided June 29, 2015 Under Arizona’s Constitution, the electorate shares lawmaking author- ity on equal footing with the Arizona Legislature. The voters may adopt laws and constitutional amendments by ballot initiative, and they may approve or disapprove, by referendum, measures passed by the Legislature. Ariz. Const., Art. IV, pt. 1, §1. “Any law which may be enacted by the Legislature . may be enacted by the people under the Initiative.” Art. XXII, §14. In 2000, Arizona voters adopted Proposition 106, an initiative aimed at the problem of gerrymandering. Proposition 106 amended Arizona’s Constitution, removing redistricting authority from the Ar- izona Legislature and vesting it in an independent commission, the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (AIRC). After the 2010 census, as after the 2000 census, the AIRC adopted redistricting maps for congressional as well as state legislative districts. The Ari- zona Legislature challenged the map the Commission adopted in 2012 for congressional districts, arguing that the AIRC and its map violated the “Elections Clause” of the U.
    [Show full text]
  • Resolution No. 2018-03 Borough of Collegeville Montgomery County, Pa
    RESOLUTION NO. 2018-03 BOROUGH OF COLLEGEVILLE MONTGOMERY COUNTY, PA A RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF A CITIZENS COMMISSION FOR LEGISLATIVE AND CONGRESSIONAL REDISTRICTING WHEREAS, the citizens of the Borough of Collegeville and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania deserve a fair, fully transparent, impartial and depoliticized process of the decennial drawing of state legislature and congressional districts of near equal population; and WHEREAS, legislative and congressional redistricting has at times resulted in gerrymandered districts that favor one political party over others; and WHEREAS, such gerrymandering of legislative and congressional districts has worked at times to the detriment of our representative democracy; and WHEREAS, the creation of a truly independent citizens redistricting commission devoid of political motivation or partisanship will: ensure a fair, transparent, and accurate legislative and congressional redistricting process that respects political subdivisions; prohibit districts from being drawn to favor or discriminate against a political party or candidate; require the use of impartial and sound methodology when setting district boundaries; require public input; and fully comply with the constitutional requirement that “no county, city, incorporated town, borough, township or ward” be divided “unless absolutely necessary,” and WHEREAS, legislation to amend the Pennsylvania Constitution to reform the decennial legislative and congressional redistricting process with the intent of using fairness and sound methodology in
    [Show full text]
  • The Legislative Reapportionment Commission, Communities of Interest, and Why Our Modern Founding Fathers Got It Right
    UNIVERSITY of PENNSYLVANIA JOURNAL of LAW & PUBLIC AFFAIRS Vol. 4 May 2019 No. 3 THE PROTECTION IS IN THE PROCESS: THE LEGISLATIVE REAPPORTIONMENT COMMISSION, COMMUNITIES OF INTEREST, AND WHY OUR MODERN FOUNDING FATHERS GOT IT RIGHT Mike Turzai,* Rodney A. Corey,** and James G. Mann*** INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 354 III. REAPPORTIONMENT DEFINED ............................................................... 355 .A. Pre-1968 Reapportionment in Pennsylvania ................................ 355 B. State and Federal Jurisprudence in the 1960s .............................. 358 C. 1967–1968 Pennsylvania Constitutional Convention ................... 361 * Unanimously elected for a third term as Speaker of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives, the author served as House Majority Leader in 2011 and an appointee to the 2011 Legislative Reapportionment Commission pursuant to Article II, Section 17 of the Pennsylvania Constitution. Elected to the House in 2001, the author serves the people of the 28th Legislative District in Allegheny County. The author is very appreciative of his coauthors and of Krystjan Callahan, David Reddecliff, and the late Karen Coates, for their extraordinary efforts during the 2011-2012 Legislative Reapportionment. The author also thanks Kathleen Gallagher and her team for their excellent counsel. Special thanks to all the Members of the Pennsylvania General Assembly with whom the author has had the honor to serve. ** Chief Counsel to the
    [Show full text]
  • Redistricting and Reapportionment
    Redistricting and Reapportionment 16 JEFFREY D. COLMAN JULIE L. BENTZ Jenner & Block Chicago REDISTRICTING AND REAPPORTIONMENT, ELECTION LAW 2002 PUBLISHED BY THE ILLINOIS INSTITUTE FOR CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION, THIS 2002 HANDBOOK IS AN UPDATE AND REVISION OF THE 1991 SUPPLEMENT. TO ORDER COPIES OF THE BOOK, PLEASE VISIT WWW.IICLE.COM. I. [16.1] Introduction II. Applicable Constitutional and Statutory Mandates A. [16.2] Reapportionment of Congressional Seats Among the States B. [16.3] Redrawing Congressional Districts in Illinois C. [16.4] Redrawing Illinois General Assembly Districts D. [16.5] Redrawing Wards in the City of Chicago E. [16.6] Redistricting Under the Illinois Municipal Code F. [16.7] Illinois Judicial Circuits G. [16.8] Locally Elected Officials III. Census Issues A. [16.9] Federal Census Law B. Who Is Counted in the Decennial Census? 1. [16.10] General Rule 2. [16.11] Undocumented Persons 3. [16.12] Overseas United States Citizens, Military Personnel, and Institutionalized Persons 4. [16.13] Undercount Issues and Statistical Sampling C. [16.14] Alternative Population Bases for Redistricting IV. The Redistricting Process A. Constitutional and Legislative Requirements for Redistricting 1. [16.15] Mandatory Considerations a. One Person, One Vote (1) [16.16] State and local legislative bodies (2) [16.17] Judicial elections b. [16.18] Compactness of Legislative Districts c. [16.19] Contiguity of Legislative Districts d. Fairness to Minorities (1) [16.20] Protection against vote dilution (2) [16.21] Improper use of racial considerations e. [16.22] Fairness to Political Parties 2. [16.23] Permissive Considerations B. [16.24] The Process of Redistricting V.
    [Show full text]
  • Designing Independent Redistricting Commissions 2
    1 DESIGNING INDEPENDENT REDISTRICTING COMMISSIONS 2 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This guide was written by Ruth Greenwood, Annabelle Harless, Blair Bowie, and Charquia Wright of Campaign Legal Center, with thanks to Adav Noti and Lernik Begian for their feedback, and Jane Ignacio for designing the report. The materials and information contained in this guide provide general information only and not legal advice. Providing this material does not create an attorney-client relationship and is not a substitute for legal advice from a qualified attorney tailored to a specific jurisdiction’s or state’s laws. Experts at Campaign Legal Center are always available to provide tailored advice. Please do not hesitate to contact us to discuss your state. You can reach us at [email protected], (202) 736-2200, or www.campaignlegalcenter.org. 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION.............................................1 II. REDISTRICTING, GERRYMANDERING, AND INDEPENDENT REDISTRICTING COMMISSIONS ...............................3 What Is Redistricting? .........................................3 Who Is Responsible for Redistricting? .............................3 What Is Gerrymandering? ......................................4 How Does One Gerrymander? ..................................5 Why Form an Independent Redistricting Commission (IRC)? ...........8 III. DESIGNING THE STRUCTURE OF AN INDEPENDENT REDISTRICTING COMMISSION ...............................10 What Is the Role of the Commission? ............................10 Who Are the Commissioners and
    [Show full text]
  • Reading Between the Lines: Congressional and State
    ———————————————————————— Reading Between the Lines Congressional and State Legislative Redistricting their Reform in Iowa, Arizona and California and Ideas for Change in New Jersey ————————— ————————— A Policy Analysis Exercise and Major Writing Credit Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Concurrent Degree of Master in Public Policy and Juris Doctor Prepared for the Eagleton Institute of Politics at Rutgers University by Benjamin Brickner May 2010 Harvard University Columbia University Kennedy School of Government School of Law Cambridge, Massachusetts New York, New York State legislative district boundaries Northeast New Jersey (2001–11) For Elbridge (and Katie) Reading Between the Lines — TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT .......................................................................................................................................................vi ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS................................................................................................................................vii CONCURRENT DEGREE STATEMENT..........................................................................................................ix 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................ 1 PURPOSE OF STUDY........................................................................................................................................1 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS.................................................................................................................................2
    [Show full text]
  • When the People Draw the Lines an Examination of the California Citizens Redistricting Commission
    When the People Draw the Lines AN EXAMINATION OF THE CALIFORNIA CITIZENS REDISTRICTING COMMISSION by Raphael J. Sonenshein with Generous Support from The James Irvine Foundation When the People Draw the Lines AN EXAMINATION OF THE CALIFORNIA CITIZENS REDISTRICTING COMMISSION by Raphael J. Sonenshein R esearch Consultants Melina Abdullah Mark Drayse Bonnie Glaser Justin Levitt Research Associate Nedda Black Editor Sarah Shectman Design e.g. communications Cover Photo CA Common Cause with Generous Support from The James Irvine Foundation Table of Contents 1 Executive Summary 9 Chapter 1: Background 16 Chapter 2: Selecting the Commissioners 25 Chapter 3: Organizing the Commission 34 Chapter 4: Outreach During the Deliberation Process 44 Chapter 5: Mapping 56 Chapter 6: The Voting Rights Act 63 Chapter 7: Timeline and Budget 69 Chapter 8: Assessments and Looking to the Future 75 Appendices Photo Courtesy of CA Common Cause Photo Courtesy of CA Executive Summary On November 8, 2008, a historic presidential election drove voter participation to unusu- ally high levels. Californians cast more than 13.5 million votes for president. Much farther down their ballot, a smaller number of voters (just short of 12 million) voted on Prop 11, also known as the Voters First Act. By a margin of less than 1 percent,1 voters transformed the way the state went about drawing districts for state offices. Instead of the state legis- lature and governor (and at times, the courts), an independent citizen commission—the California Citizens Redistricting Commission—would now accomplish the task. With little notice in the tidal wave of the presidential race, Californians had made a major change to their state’s constitution.
    [Show full text]
  • The Redistricting Landscape, 2021–22 by Michael C
    The Redistricting Landscape, 2021–22 By Michael C. Li PUBLISHED FEBRUARY 11, 2021 Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law Table of Contents Overview . 3 ABOUT THE BRENNAN CENTER FOR JUSTICE Highlights: What’s New in 2021–22? . 3 The Brennan Center for Justice at States to Watch . 4 NYU School of Law is a nonpartisan law and policy institute that works Factor 1: Who Will Draw the Maps? . 5 to reform, revitalize — and when necessary defend — our country’s The 2021–22 Landscape . 5 systems of democracy and justice. The Brennan Center is dedicated to Factor 2: A More Fraught Legal Framework . 9 protecting the rule of law and the values of constitutional democracy. The Supreme Court’s Green Light for Partisan Gerrymandering . 9 We focus on voting rights, campaign finance reform, ending mass The Loss of Section 5 . 9 incarceration, and preserving our liberties while also maintaining our The Narrowing of Section 2 . 10 national security. Part think tank, part advocacy group, part cutting- Potential Efforts to Change the Apportionment Base . 11 edge communications hub, we start with rigorous research. We craft State Court Wins Against Partisan Gerrymandering . 11 innovative policies. And we fight for them — in Congress and the states, Stronger Protections Against Racial Gerrymandering . 12 in the courts, and in the court of public opinion. The Prospect of Federal Redistricting Reform . 12 Factor 3: Population and Demographic Changes . 13 STAY CONNECTED TO THE BRENNAN CENTER Where Big Changes in Population Have Occurred . 13 Visit our website at Where There Have Been Demographic Shifts .
    [Show full text]