DOCSLIB.ORG

May 7, 2021 Volume 5, No

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
May 7, 2021 Volume 5, No This issue brought to you by 2022 House Overview: State-by-State Redistricting Analysis MAY 7, 2021 VOLUME 5, NO. 9 By Nathan L. Gonzales and Jacob Rubashkin Six months into the 2022 midterm elections, and we still don’t know Impact of Reapportionment the congressional lines that will define and determine the fight for the After the decennial census, there is reapportionment in order to make House majority. And considering Republicans need a net gain of just five congressional districts the same size. Some states gain or lose seats depending seats, literally every seat matters. on population trends over the previous decade. The U.S. Census Bureau’s delays in relaying critical data has thrown States Gaining Districts (6) Change an extra degree of uncertainty into a redistricting process that normally Texas +2 (from 36 seats to 38 seats) has its own set of surprises. At the end of April, the Bureau released final apportionment figures, Florida +1 (from 27 to 28) albeit four months late. Seven states lost seats (California, Illinois, Montana +1 (from 1 to 2) Michigan, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia) while Colorado +1 (from 7 to 8) six states gained seats (Texas +2, Florida, Montana, Oregon, Colorado, and North Carolina). But even states that didn’t gain or lose seats must North Carolina +1 (from 13 to 14) redraw to account for population changes over the last decade. Oregon +1 (from 5 to 6) Of the nation’s 435 districts, Republicans will draw 187, Democrats States Losing Districts (7) Change will draw 74 and commissions will draw 121, according to each state’s law. There are 47 seats in states where redistricting power is split California -1 (from 53 seats to 52 seats) between Democrats and Republicans, and six states with single, at-large Illinois -1 (from 18 to 17) districts. Michigan -1 (from 14 to 13) It will still be months, however, before states can start drawing their new maps. The Census Bureau’s delay in releasing block-level data could Ohio -1 (from 16 to 15) upend the process in states with constitutional or statutory deadlines Pennsylvania -1 (from 18 to 17) and early primaries. In Iowa, for instance, the state Supreme Court has New York -1 (from 27 to 26) already said it expects it will have to draw the maps itself. The necessary data is scheduled to be released in August or West Virginia -1 (from 3 to 2) September. Ten years ago, half of the congressional districts had been Source: U.S. Census Bureau finalized by October of 2011. This fall, states will just be getting started. Just because a party controls the redistricting process doesn’t mean they can do whatever they want. And nearly every map will be challenged in court by the aggrieved party. Last decade, maps in Florida, Pennsylvania, and North Carolina were all redrawn by courts at least CALENDAR once following the initial redistricting. At the outset, Republicans appear to have an advantage in the May 8 Virginia Republican Gubernatorial Convention redistricting process. But the 2022 elections are more than the district June 1 New Mexico’s 1st District Special Election lines. The strength of individual candidates, quality of the campaigns, June 8 Virginia Democratic Gubernatorial Primary and the overall political environment will contribute to the outcomes June 8 New Jersey Gubernatorial Primary of each race. And while the immediate goal is the majority in 2022, the Aug. 3 Ohio’s 11th & 15th District Special Election Primaries success of maps drawn this cycle can’t be measured until later in the Nov. 2 Florida’s 20th District Special Election Primary decade when the political winds have shifted a few times. Nov. 2 Virginia & New Jersey Gubernatorial Elections InsideElections.com CALENDAR July 30-31 Democratic Presidential Debates (Detroit, Mich.) Oct. 12 Louisiana Gubernatorial Jungle Primary Aug. 6 Mississippi Gubernatorial Primary Nov. 5 Mississippi and Kentucky Gubernatorial General Elections Aug. 27 Mississippi Gubernatorial Primary Runoff Nov. 16 Louisiana Gubernatorial General Election Sept. 10 North Carolina’s 3rd & 9th District Special General Elections Dec. 2 Illinois Candidate Filing Deadline Sept. 12-13 Democratic Presidential Debates Dec. 9 Texas Candidate Filing Deadline Alabama. Current breakdown: 7R, 1D. According to pre- California. Current breakdown: 42D, 11R (Apportionment: -1 apportionment announcement estimates, the Yellowhammer State seat). Despite growing in population by 2.2 million people over the last was at significant risk of losing a congressional seat, but Alabama will decade, California retain its 8-member delegation. No partisan changes are expected, lost a congressional just a competitive Republican primary to replace 5th District Rep. Mo district in this round Brooks, who is running for the Senate. The map will be drawn by the of apportionment. GOP-controlled state legislature, and in the wake of the Shelby County v. According to Holder Supreme Court case, Alabama will no longer be required to seek speculation on both preclearance of its map from the U.S. Department of Justice. sides of the aisle, that seat could come Alaska. Current breakdown: 1R, 0D. No apportionment changes from the Central in Alaska, which has had a single, at-large district since it became a Valley (which is state in 1959. Rep. Don Young, the 87-year-old Republican who has Courtesy of U.S. Congress primarily represented Mike Garcia represented Alaska in the House since 1973, just announced he’s running by Republicans) or again. It seems like every cycle Democrats start to get excited about Los Angeles (which is almost entirely represented by Democrats). GOP defeating Young and he always wins. Rep. Mike Garcia’s district could also be at risk. Neither Democratic nor Republican strategists know for sure what the new map will look like Arizona. Current breakdown: 5D, 4R. Arizona not gaining a because the lines will be drawn by an independent, citizen commission tenth seat was one of the biggest surprises from the Census Bureau’s and it does not prioritize incumbent protection. The commission has apportionment announcement, so the state will have nine districts for the 14 members — five Democrats, five Republicans, and four unaffiliated next decade. Much of the state’s growth is in Maricopa County, which voters, all randomly selected from a pool of 60 chosen by a panel of state is trending Democratic from Donald Trump’s 3-point win in 2016 to Joe auditors — and can only pass a map with support from at least three Biden’s 2-point win in 2020. The two parties have slightly different views Democrats, three Republicans, and two unaffiliated members. It’s tough of what the new districts will look like. Democrats believe the population to determine the final net gain or loss of seats for each party until a new growth should make the surrounding 6th (GOP Rep. Dave Schweikert) map is finalized. For now, much of the political attention in the state is or 8th (GOP Rep. Debbie Lesko) districts more competitive. Republicans focused on the potential recall of Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom. believe the 1st (Democratic Rep. Tom O’Halleran) and 2nd (Democratic Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick is retiring) could become better takeover targets. Colorado. Current breakdown: 4D, 3R (Apportionment: +1 The lines will be drawn by a five-member redistricting commission. seat). After gaining a seat after the 1980 and 2000 censuses, Colorado is Four members are selected by state legislative leaders from a pool gaining another seat following the 2020 count. But for the first time, an assembled by the state’s commission on appellate court appointments, independent commission will draw the lines. The 12-member body (four and those four then select an independent chairperson out of a separate Democrats, four Republicans, four unaffiliated) was randomly selected pool assembled by the appointments panel. Republicans are confident from a winnowed group of qualified applicants, with some input from the process won’t be as partisan compared to 10 years ago, and the state legislative leaders. Maps will originate from the commission’s commission has already frustrated Democrats by hiring staff with GOP nonpartisan staff; the commission can provide direction with a vote of ties. In a neutral political environment, a ton of partisan turnover isn’t eight members, including two unaffiliated members. If the commission likely, but there’s uncertainty with the commission. cannot come to an agreement on a plan (which takes eight votes as well), then a plan designated the “third” plan produced by the staff is sent to Arkansas. Current breakdown: 4R, 0D. No major changes the state Supreme Court for review, and then implemented. With the expected in the Razorback State. Arkansas will retain its four districts new process there is more uncertainty about what the map will look like and Republicans are likely to hold them all. In 2020, none of the House and how many districts will be competitive. Considering just one of the races were closer than 10 points. The state legislature will draw the new eight congressional races in 2020 was decided by less than 10 points, map — this is the first post-census year since Reconstruction in which GOP and Democratic strategists are both hoping that the new seat is Republicans control the process. Continued on page 3 Ryan Matsumoto @InsideElections Contributing Analyst [email protected] facebook.com/InsideElections Bradley Wascher Will Taylor Contributing Analyst Production Artist [email protected] [email protected] Nathan L. Gonzales Jacob Rubashkin Editor & Publisher Reporter & Analyst Robert Yoon Stuart Rothenberg [email protected] [email protected] Contributing Reporter & Analyst Senior Editor [email protected] @nathanlgonzales @jacobrubashkin [email protected] 1140 3rd Street, N.E., Washington, 20002 • 202-546-2822 Copyright 2021, Inside Elections LLC.
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]
  • 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.
    [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]