The Election Processwhite Paper (Extracted Pages)
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS Paperback Book ® OF THE UNITEDCover Template STATES IMPACT8.5” XON 11” Book ISSUES 2018-2020(215.9mm X 279.4mm) A Guide to Public Policy Positions 0.25” Spine Width (6.292mm) The Election ProcessWhite Paper (extracted pages) Front 8.5” x 11” 1730 M Street, NW, Washington, DC 20036 I 202.429.1965 I lwv.org (215.9mm x 279.4mm) right of self-government of DC citizens, including restrictions on abortion funding. The Election Process In the 108th Congress (2003-2005), the League Apportionment worked with DC Vote to develop legislation providing voting rights in Congress to DC The League’s Position residents. A hearing was held in spring 2004 to discuss four different legislative approaches to Statement of Position on Apportionment, as announced gaining representation in Congress. In 2005, by the National Board, January 1966, and revised March 1982: members of Congress took the DC voting rights issue on with more enthusiasm than had been The League of Women Voters of the United States seen in years. Under a new legislative plan, Utah believes that congressional districts and government would receive an additional fourth seat in Congress legislative bodies should be apportioned substantially on while congressional voting rights in the House of population. The League is convinced that this standard, Representatives would be provided for American established by the Supreme Court, should be maintained, citizens living in Washington, DC. This balanced and that the U.S. Constitution should not be amended to approach, developed by Rep. Tom Davis (R-VA) allow for consideration of factors other than population and supported by the DC City Council and Mayor, in apportionment. would provide voting rights for District citizens without upsetting the partisan balance of the House. As momentum for this plan increased, the League History League worked tirelessly to encourage members of The apportionment of election districts was a state Congress and the public to act on DC voting rights. issue until 1962 and 1964 Supreme Court rulings, requiring that both houses of state legislatures In 2006, with support from the DC government, must be apportioned substantially on population, LWVEF launched a DC Voting Rights Education transferred the issue to the national arena. These project, aimed at building public awareness of the rulings, spelling out the basic constitutional right unique relationship between Congress and District to equal representation, prompted introduction of Columbia citizens, specifically their lack of in Congress of constitutional amendments and full voting rights. As part of the project, selected laws to subvert the Court’s one-person, one-vote Leagues throughout the country began work to doctrine. Leagues in 33 states already had positions educate voters and local leaders on the DC voting on the issue when, in 1965, the League’s national rights issue through summer 2007. council adopted a study on apportionment. By January 1966, the League had reached national Despite the League’s hard work and progress in member agreement on a position that both the 109th (2005-2007) and 110th (2007-2009) houses of state legislatures must be apportioned Congressional sessions toward passing DC voting substantially on population. The 1972 Convention rights legislation to provide House voting rights extended the position to cover all voting districts. to District voters, success ultimately eluded supporters. League action on both the national and state levels during the late 1960s had a significant role in the In 2016, LWVEF relaunched efforts to build defeat of efforts to circumvent the Court’s ruling. awareness about the need for DC representation in The League first lobbied in Congress against the Congress through a grant from the DC government. Dirksen Amendment, which would have allowed With ongoing support from the DC government, apportionment of one legislative house based on this effort has continued through 2018, with factors other than population, and later worked to LWVEF staff and LWVDC volunteers working to defeat resolutions to amend the Constitution by raise awareness and educate the public about the petition of state legislatures for a constitutional need for DC voting rights throughout the entire Convention. Successful efforts to fend off country, working with grasstops, hosting public inadvisable constitutional amendments have events, building a social media campaign, and left the responsibility for work on this position providing leadership development. at the state and local levels. Successive League Conventions have reaffirmed the commitment to an LWVUS apportionment position to be available for action should the need arise. After the 1980 census, state and local Leagues used this position to work for equitable apportionment of state and local representative bodies. 20 In addition, since 1988, LWVEF worked with state challenging the inclusion of the question. LWVUS and local Leagues to encourage full participation joined an amicus as it headed to the U.S. Supreme in the census and to ensure that subsequent Court challenging the question’s inclusion without reapportionment and redistricting complied with proper vetting. LWVUS also lobbied Congress, one-person, one-vote requirements under the engaged the LWVUS Lobby Corps, and activated Voting Rights Act. Leagues conducted projects to its grassroot network yielding the most successful encourage the widest possible participation in the engagement campaign of 2018 all to raise awareness 1990 census as a way to ensure the most accurate of the damaging effects this question would have population base for apportionment and redistricting. on communities around the country. Leagues also work for equitable apportionment and See also the position on Voting Rights (page 13), redistricting of all elected government bodies, using which applies to apportionment issues. Leagues techniques from public education and testimony to applying the Apportionment position should be monitoring and litigation. aware that the Voting Rights position (and League Behind the League position on apportionment is a action supporting the Voting Rights Act) recognizes conviction that a population standard is the most that both the Constitution and the Voting Rights equitable way of assuring that each vote is of equal Act require that reapportionment not dilute the value in a democratic and representative system effective representation of minority citizens. of government. The term “substantially” used in Supreme Court decisions allows adequate leeway for districting to provide for any necessary local diversities, and to protect minority representation Redistricting under the League’s voting rights position. In 1998-1999 the League urged Congress to fully The League’s Position fund the 2000 census and to support scientific Statement of Position on Redistricting, as adopted by sampling as the means to ensure the most accurate concurrence, June 2016: count. State Leagues also have worked to ensure that scientific sampling is used for redistricting 1. Responsibility for redistricting preferably should within the states. be vested in an independent special commission, with membership that reflects the diversity of the In 2009, LWVEF was an official partner of the unit of government, including citizens at large, U.S. Census, with the goal of getting everyone representatives of public interest groups, and counted. LWVEF staff worked closely with national members of minority groups. partners (such as civil rights and Latino groups), and provided information and support to state 2. Every redistricting process should include: and local Leagues in their efforts to minimize an a. Specific timelines for the steps leading to a undercount. redistricting plan; The League also submitted an amicus brief in the b. Full disclosure throughout the process and public U.S. Supreme Court case Evenwel v. Abbott. The hearings on the plan proposed for adoption; case determined whether states are required to use a metric other than total population, such as i. Redistricting at all levels of government must be registered voters or citizen voting age population accomplished in an open, unbiased manner with (CVAP) when apportioning districts for state citizen participation and access at all levels and legislative districts. The League’s brief in this case steps of the process; supported the current practice of drawing district ii. Should be subject to open meeting laws; lines based on population counts and the U.S. Supreme Court upheld this practice. c. A provision that any redistricting plan should be adopted by the redistricting authority with more As the 2020 Census approaches LWVUS has worked than a simple majority vote; to encourage participation and provide guidance for state and local Leagues wishing to participate d. Remedial provisions established in the event that in Complete Count committees. This included the redistricting authority fails to enact a plan. publishing a Census Action Kit which contains Specific provisions should be made for court review printable materials for engaging communities in of redistricting measures and for courts to require Census activities. the redistricting authority to act on a specific schedule; The League also engaged in efforts to remove a citizenship question from the 2020 Census. LWVNY i. Time limits should be set for initiating court joined one of six lawsuits across the country action for review, 21 ii. The courts should promptly review and rule on Leagues at all levels