Redistricting lawsuits relating to the 2010 Census

This page details lawsuits filed pertaining to redistricting after the 2010 census. Redistricting lawsuits are often filed over compliance with redistricting guidelines in state constitutions, equal protection (one person, one vote), and the Voting Rights Act. Sometimes legal action is triggered by the failure of normal redistricting processes (e.g. partisan deadlock). As of Saturday, May 25, 2013 redistricting lawsuits have been filed in 38 states. Those states are:

• Alabama
• Alaska
• Arizona
• Arkansas
• California
• Colorado
• Florida
• Georgia
• Hawaii
• Idaho
• Illinois
• Indiana
• Kentucky

• Louisiana
• Maine
• Maryland
• Michigan
• Minnesota
• Mississippi
• Missouri
• Nevada
• New Jersey
• New Mexico
• New York
• North Carolina
• Ohio

• Oklahoma
• Oregon
• Pennsylvania
• South Carolina
• Tennessee
• Texas
• Virginia
• Washington
• West Virginia
• Wisconsin
• Wyoming

During the 2000 census redistricting process, there were 140 total maps submitted by states in three categories: U.S. House maps, State Senate maps, and State House maps. Of those 140 maps, lawsuits were filed and the courts needed to intercede in 37 of those maps -- roughly 25% of the time.

Lawsuits by State

See also: State Legislative and Congressional Redistricting

Alabama

See also: Redistricting in Alabama Shelby County challenge to the Voting Rights Act In April 2010, the Shelby County Commission voted to approve a lawsuit by County Attorney Frank "Butch" Ellis challenging the constitutionality of sections 4(b) and 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The suit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, is being paid for by the Project on Fair Representation, who describe themselves as "a not-for-profit legal defense fund designed to support litigation that challenges racial and ethnic classifications and preferences in state and federal courts." The sections in question deal with the issue of "preclearance", where areas designated under the VRA must get all voting changes approved by the U.S. Department of Justice. A total of 16 states, including Alabama, must receive some form of approval under the act. Congress renewed these sections in 2006 for another 25 years without updating which parts of the country should be covered. Shelby County is arguing that this was done without sufficient evidence, explaining, "It simply was not rational in theory or practice to impose preclearance on the covered jurisdictions through 2031 based on voting statistics from 1964, 1968, and 1972." The Justice Department defended the law, saying that these areas continue to show trends of discrimination, stating, "The symptoms of discrimination have changed, but the underlying disease remains the same in the very jurisdictions that have been the subject (of federal oversight) since its original enactment." Following oral arguments made on February 2, 2011, U.S. District Judge John Bates asked for written comments regarding the coverage formula as it was used in 1965. Ellis contended the case has the potential to make it to the U.S. Supreme Court. Court decision On September 21, 2011, a federal court in Washington, DC upheld the law and rejected the lawsuit. In a 151-page opinion issued by Judge John Bates, the court held there are still instances of intentional racial discrimination which would require the Voting Rights Act to protect minorities. Legislative Black Caucus Lawsuit On August 10, 2012, the Legislative Black Caucus, along with the Association of Black County Officials and several black county commissioners, filed a lawsuit seeking to block implementation of legislative redistricting plans. According to the lawsuit, the plans dilute minority voting strength, violate "one person, one vote," and illegally split counties. The United States Department of Justice approved of the new district plans on October 5, 2012. This ruling rendered the lawsuit moot, allowing for implementation of the new maps. References

Alaska

See also: Redistricting in Alaska Note: July 14, 2011 was the deadline for challenges to the state's redistricting plan. Fairbanks borough lawsuit On June 24, the Fairbanks North Star Borough Assembly voted 8-1 to sue the state over its new redistricting maps. The suit was officially filed on July 13, 2011. The community argued that the map impermissibly diluted Fairbanks voters by placing a significant portion of northwest Fairbanks in a expansive house district which included communities along the Bearing Sea coastline. In addition, the Borough Assembly argued that some of the city's voters had been unnecessarily split into two house districts. The Alaska Constitution requires that, "Each house district shall be formed of contiguous and compact territory containing as nearly as practicable a relatively integrated socio-economic area." The Assembly's resolution can be found here. Fairbanks voters file separate suit A group of Fairbanks residents filed a similar but separate lawsuit challenging the redistricting plan. Petersburg lawsuit On July 12, the City of Petersburg filed a complaint against Alaska's legislative redistricting map. Joining the suit as plaintiffs were a board member of the Petersburg Indian Association and a local resident. The complaint argued that the map violated the Alaska Constitution by including Petersburg and part of Juneau in a single district. The plaintiffs argued that the regions were not socio-economically integrated. Aleutians consider litigation The Aleutians East Borough had considered litigation against the state over the new legislative redistricting plan. As it stood, the plan split the Alaska Peninsula and the Aleutians Islands into different house districts. A similar move was ruled unconstitutional by the Alaska Supreme Court in 1992. The community argued that the region shares social and economic ties and should not be divided. However, after further considering its legal options, the borough decided against the suit. Mat-Su challenge vetoed After a unanimous vote by the Borough Assembly in favor of challenging the state's redistricting plan, the Mat-Su mayor vetoed the resolution. The Assembly attempted to override the veto, but could not get the required supermajority. In passing the original resolution, the Assembly was primarily motivated by the wide-ranging House District 6 which includes Fishhook, Sutton-Chickaloon, and Delta Junction. Democrats decide against lawsuit The Alaska Democratic Party decided against challenging the state's redistricting plans. Party Chair Patti Higgins said that while the party would not sue over the maps, they would support others who choose to challenge the maps. Court consolidates lawsuits Judge Michael McConahy of Alaska's Fourth District Superior Court decided to consolidate the three challenges to the state redistricting plan into a single case. The trial was set for January 2012 in Fairbanks. Ketchikan seeks to intervene in favor of maps The Ketchikan Gateway Borough sought to join the lawsuit over state redistricting. However, unlike the three groups challenging the plans, Ketchikan attempted to join the state in defending the new maps. Ketchikan Borough attorney Scott Brandt-Erichsen argued that if the court agreed with the City of Petersburg's complaints, it could force the state to divide Ketchikan among multiple districts. Board to defend map via VRA One of the main points at issue in Alaska's consolidated redistricting lawsuit was the shape of District 38, the subject of the original Fairbanks lawsuits. The Alaska Redistricting Board announced that it would not defend the district on the basis of social or economic factors. Rather, the Board defended the district under the Voting Rights Act, which mandates fair representation for minorities. Counsel for Fairbanks residents, Mike Walleri, welcomed the move, arguing that it simplified the facts at issue in the case. Plaintiffs inquire into board meetings Attorneys for plaintiffs in the consolidated redistricting lawsuit looked into into whether Redistricting Board meetings followed Alaska's Open Meetings Act. Attorney Michael White, who defended the state's 2001 maps, called the move a "red herring." Fairbanks Borough out, Petersburg repositions On October 25, the Fairbanks North Star Borough filed a motion to have itself removed from the consolidated redistricting lawsuit. The borough cited cost overruns as the reason for backing out of the suit. Following the Fairbanks decision, the City of Petersburg decided to consolidate its position, dropping some of its more tenuous arguments and focusing on the new districts' lack of compactness. The recent DOJ pre-approval made several of the city's claims harder to litigate. Petersburg was split by two districts under the new plan. Withdrawal challenged, permitted On October 31, the attorney for the group of Fairbanks citizens challenging the state's redistricting plan filed a partial opposition to the request for withdrawal. The decision to withdraw caused a significant controversy among Fairbanks residents since it was made in a private executive session and an original supporter (specifically named as a plaintiff in the borough lawsuit), Fairbanks Assemblyman Tim Beck, voiced opposition to the withdrawal. The partial opposition sought to block the withdrawal unless the vote was public and Beck consented. The borough argued that is did not need the consent of the other parties to withdraw, but the opponents argued that, since the cases have all be consolidated, other plaintiffs should have had input on the decision. Ultimately, the court decided to allow the Fairbanks Borough to withdraw, deciding on November 3 to permit the move. The judge noted that the Fairbanks Assembly's open meeting rules were not at issue in the case and that the remaining plaintiffs were free to argue points raised by the borough's filings without amending their own. Borough assembly to fund lawsuit Although the Fairbanks Borough Assembly officially withdrew from the consolidated redistricting lawsuit on November 3, the Assembly voted to provide $25,000 in legal services for the remaining plaintiffs. The Assembly was deadlocked on the issue, but freshly sworn-in Assemblyman John Davies broke the tie. He was on vacation and missed the ordinary swearing-in date for borough assembly members. Davies was a former Democratic member of the Alaska House of Representatives. Opponents suggest that the decision was politically motivated -- a charge Davies denied. Petersburg challenge rejected On December 12, Judge Michael McConahy of Alaska's Fourth District Superior Court ruled against the city of Petersburg's redistricting challenge. The city argued that the 32nd District did not meet the compactness requirements of the Alaska Constitution. However, the Redistricting Board ultimately prevailed, arguing that the district's shape was required to accommodate a minority influence district for native Alaskans. No appeal for Petersburg, Fairbanks residents remain After a legal defeat, the City of Petersburg decided against appealing the decision. However, a group of Fairbanks residents -- the only plaintiffs remaining -- continued their fight against the state's legislative districts. The residents contend that the state failed to consider differences within the Native Alaskan community that impact the calculation of how many VRA districs the state should have. The Fairbanks residents argued for four VRA districts instead of the new map's five. Attorneys for the state disagreed, arguing that these differences were not relevant to the calculation. Preliminary ruling issued On Friday, December 23, Judge Michael McConahy of Alaska's Fourth District Superior Court issued a preliminary ruling, siding with several Fairbanks residents on a number of key issues concerning their pending redistricting challenge. He ruled that Districts 1, 2, 37, and 38 all violated the Alaska Constitution's compactness requirements. However, since the Voting Rights Act trumps this provision, the board had another avenue to defend its map. McConahy did rule that District 2 had no credible VRA defense. The trial was scheduled to begin on January 9. Redistricting trial begins On Monday, January 9, a trial began for the remaining Alaska redistricting challenge. The chairman of the redistricting board, a redistricting expert, and two state senators testified. Redistricting trial ends Approximately a week after after it got underway, the trial for the remaining Alaska redistricting lawsuit drew to a close on January 17. A final decision in the case was expected to be issued by the Fairbanks Superior court by February 6. However, observers believed that the case would ultimately be decided by the Alaska Supreme Court. Judge orders four districts redrawn, appealed On February 3, Judge Michael McConahy of Alaska's Fourth District Superior Court ruled that state House Districts 1, 2, 37, and 38 violated the Alaska Constitution. McConahy found that Districts 1, 2, and 37 violated the compactness criterion of the state constitution. In addition, he found that District 37 violated the contiguity condition and that District 38 violated the socio-economic integration condition. McConahy was less sympathetic toward the plaintiffs' claims of partisan gerrymandering, but he noted that the Voting Rights Act justifications offered for the districts were wanting. The Alaska Redistricting Board appealed the decision on Districts 37 and 38. Plaintiffs planned to appeal McConahy's decision on Districts 6 and 38, arguing that the problems with District 38 were not fully recognized in the ruling. Oral arguments before the Alaska Supreme Court were set for March 13. The full ruling can be found here. AK Supreme Court rules on maps On Tuesday, March 13, the Alaska Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a lawsuit against the state's new legislative districts. The previous month, Judge Michael McConahy of Alaska's Fourth District Superior Court ruled that state House Districts 1, 2, 37, and 38 violated the Alaska Constitution. McConahy found that Districts 1, 2, and 37 violated the compactness criterion of the state constitution. In addition, he found that District 37 violated the contiguity condition and that District 38 violated the socio-economic integration condition. The Alaska Redistricting Board appealed the ruling with respect to Districts 37 and 38, defending the districts as drawn to comply with the Voting Rights Act. On Wednesday, March 14, the High Court ruled that the redistricting board had to redraw the plan with a priority on following the Alaska Constitution. The court did not specifically rule on Districts 37 and 38. Instead, it instructed the Board to first attempt to square the districts with the state constitution, then adjust for compliance with the Voting Rights Act. Only then, argued the court, would the justices be able to evaluate which deviations from the constitution were truly necessary. If the map was not altered in advance of the 2012 elections, the board could have petitiond to use the contested plan as an interim map, redrawing the districts after the election season. However, since the changes ordered to Districts 1 and 2 were not contested in the appeal, these changes had to be made to any interim map. The case was remanded to Judge McConahy who set a April 2 deadline for submission of a new plan. The plaintiffs and other interested parties were invited to submit their own proposals. The Board scheduled meetings from March 26-31 to work on a new plan. The Supreme Court's ruling can be found here. Timeline dropped After the Alaska Supreme Court remanded the redistricting challenge to the superior court, Judge McConahy set an April 2 deadline for submitting new plans and an April 13 deadline for review and adoption by the Board. Opponents were also invited to file their own map submissions by April 2 or file objections to the adopted plan by April 23. The board was given until April 27 to respond to any objections. McConahy set a May 7 court date for revisiting the plans. Although the Alaska Redistricting Board had already scheduled meetings to make the necessary revisions, it questioned McConahy's authority to establish the timeline. On March 16, attorneys for the Board asked McConahy vacate the order establishing the deadlines. On March 21, McConahy agreed to vacate the order. The board planned to complete the revised map by June 1--Alaska's filing deadline for legislative candidates. The board held a series of meetings each day the following week to begin work on the new map. Citizens unable to attend the meetings in person were able to participate via streaming video or teleconference. Dates and other information on the meetings can be found here. Board works on new map On March 14, the Alaska Supreme Court ruled that the redistricting board had to redraw its first map with a priority on following the Alaska Constitution. Only when a constitutional map was drafted could the board adjust it for compliance with the Voting Rights Act. On Tuesday, March 27, the board approved a preliminary plan in compliance with the state constitution. On Thursday, March 29, the board approved adjustments to the Fairbanks area to satisfy the VRA. The board aimed to have all the necessary adjustments made by that Saturday. Most notably, Thursday's tweaks restored a Senate seat to Fairbanks. Revised maps approved On April 5, the Alaska Redistricting Board approved a pair of revised legislative maps. One was the revised redistricting map. The other was an interim plan approved in case the revised plan was rejected by the courts or the DOJ. The interim map was quite similar to the original, overturned map. The current map can be found here. The original redistricting map can be found here. The interim map can be found here. The revised map can be found here. Deadline for objections set On April 5, the Alaska Redistricting Board approved revised redistricting maps, following a lawsuit which overturned the original plans. Judge Michael McConahy gave the plaintiffs until April 16 to file complaints regarding the revised map. The board had to submit its response to any complaints by April 18. The revised plan also faced DOJ vetting under the Voting Rights Act. The filing deadline for Alaska legislative candidates was June 1, 2012. Revised maps thrown out On April 20, Judge Michael McConahy of Alaska's Fourth District Superior Court struck down the state Redistricting Board's revised map. He found that the plan still failed to ensure compliance with the Alaska Constitution. Earlier in the year, McConahy and (upon appeal) the Alaska Supreme Court overturned Board's original plan. The Board held a public meeting on April 24 to consider an appeal. The ruling in the case can be found here. Details and teleconference info for the meeting can be found here. Board appeals, asks for interim map On May 3, the Alaska Redistricting Board petitioned the state Supreme Court to allow the original redistricting plan to remain in place for the 2012 elections. The original plan, along with a revised plan had been struck down by the courts. The Board appealed the latest ruling to the Supreme Court. However, with the candidate filing deadline on June 1, a ruling in that appeal might not come in time, and a provisional map might have been required. Even once a final plan was approved, the Department of Justice still had to clear the plan. Supreme Court rejects revised maps On May 10, the Alaska Supreme Court rejected the Alaska Redistricting Board's revised redistricting map. A previous version of the map had already been struck down by the court. Although the ruling reiterated the need to more closely adhere to the Alaska Constitution, it also gave more specific instructions regarding the map. The court ordered the Board to redraw House Districts 31 through 34 and Senate Districts P and Q. The court had previously instructed the Board to make Voting Rights Act adjustments only after the state constitutional requirements were satisfied. However, this time the court instructed the board not to make VRA adjustments since, according to the court, the Act did not justify diverging from the state constitution for the districts in question. The Board had until May 15 to revise the plans. Objections had to be filed by May 18. Board revises plan On May 14, the Alaska Redistricting Board approved changes to the state legislative map in an effort to satisfy instructions issued by the state Supreme Court. The plan was the Board's third attempt to redraw Alaska's legislative districts. Supreme Court picks interim map On May 22, the Alaska Supreme Court selected an interim redistricting plan for the 2012 elections. The Alaska Redistricting Board's first revised plan was approved as the interim plan. The Board's second and latest revision was not selected. While the court did not formally rule on the latter plan, it was expected to issues instructions for revising the plan's southeast districts. The court expressed concern that the latest version would not pass muster under the Voting Rights Act. On May 25, the Redistricting Board submitted the interim redistricting plan for DOJ pre-clearance. Plaintiffs in the redistricting lawsuit asked the court to stay the implementation of the plan until the DOJ reached a decision. The interim plan can be found here. The Supreme Court order can be found here. On June 15, a U.S. District Judge ruled that Alaska's election plans could move forward while the state's interim redistricting map waited to be evaluated by a three-judge federal panel. The lawsuit was filed by a group of Alaska natives. They argued that the map could not be implemented until it was precleared by the DOJ. Specifically, they asked the judge to suspend implementation of the map until their case could be heard by a planned, three-judge panel. While this request was denied, the maps could still have been suspended by the panel, which would have placed the state's August 28 primary elections in jeopardy. State challenges pre-clearance requirement With a three-judge panel set to consider on June 28 if the elections could proceed with final approval from the DOJ pending, the state challenged the pre-clearance requirement. In a press release, Lt. Gov. Mead Treadwell (R) stated, "Under Section 5, if the state wants to move a polling place across the street, it has to get federal permission. If it wants to change the wording on a form, it has to get federal permission. This federal intrusion into our state elections is unnecessary, burdensome, and unconstitutional. Congress has no basis to micromanage Alaska’s elections. It’s time to get out from under this yoke." Attorney General Michael Geraghty stressed that the state was only challenging the requirement that federal permission is necessary prior to making any changes to the state's electoral process, not the entire Voting Rights Act. On August 21, 2012, the state of Alaska filed suit arguing that Sections 4 and 5 of the Voting Rights Act are unconstitutional and should not be enforced. According to the lawsuit, "no such evidence exists" that Alaska should be on the list of states required to get approval from the U.S. Department of Justice for redistricting plans or proposed election changes. References

Arizona

See also: Redistricting in Arizona Voting Rights Act challenge On August 25, 2011, the Attorney General filed a lawsuit against the federal government that challenged portions of the Voting Rights Act. Attorney General Tom Horne said the state is subject to a "tortuous" procedure and approval process conducted by the Department of Justice. Horne said that Arizona demonstrated that the state is fair to racial minority voters and should no longer be subject to preclearance. The lawsuit requested a hearing before a three-judge panel. According to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, the DOJ would defend the Voting Rights Act. "The provisions challenged in this case, including the preclearance requirement, were reauthorized by Congress in 2006 with overwhelming and bipartisan support," Holder wrote in an email to the Arizona Republic. Challenge to implemented maps After a contentious map-drawing process in Arizona was seemingly ended with the approval of maps by the Department of Justice, it looked like drama would be returning. Two lawsuits were filed in April against the new congressional and state legislative maps. Both lawsuits said the state’s independent redistricting commission violated constitutional requirements on processes and criteria for drawing maps. The suit challenging the legislative district alleged that it unconstitutionally packed Republicans into certain districts, providing an advantage to Democrats in other districts. Congressional map On June 7, 2012, Republicans filed a lawsuit in US District Court, asking that the congressional map approved by the redistricting commission be prohibited after the 2012 elections. The lawsuit contended that the voter approved law, which allows a commission rather than the legislature to draw congressional districts, violates the Constitution. Speaker of the House Andy Tobin (R) stated, "Today, the Legislature is asking the federal courts to bring the constitutional redistricting process back to Arizona's elected representatives." U.S. District Judge Paul Rosenblatt granted a motion to create a three-judge panel to hear the case. Rosenblatt would also serve on the commission. The two other members were to be appointed by the chief judge of the US 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. The case got underway on August 22. Lawyers for the Republicans-backed lawsuit argued it should proceed as the redistricting commission violated requirements that were put in place to protect voters. Lawyers for the redistricting commission, meanwhile, sought to have the suit dismissed, arguing the allegations were unfounded. On October 16, Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Mark Brain dismissed parts of the lawsuit, but said it could continue and gave plaintiffs until November 9 to file a new complaint. Brain stated that the suit could continue on the following three original arguments: The commission "abandoned" the initial grid-like map once it started to make adjustments per state Constitution requirements. The commission did not take into consideration suggestions by the Legislature. Commissioners may have violated the state's open meeting law when drawing up what eventually became Congressional District 9. The complaints dismissed included arguments that the commission failed to advertise a proper congressional map and that it violated Open Meeting Law when discussing hiring potential mapping firms. References

Arkansas

See also: Redistricting in Arkansas Legislative map lawsuit State senator Jack Crumbly and a group of residents from eastern Arkansas sued the three-member Board of Apportionment on January 23, 2012. The suit was filed in federal court. The lawsuit alleged that the new boundaries diluted the black vote in Crumbly's district, as the number of voting-age blacks was lowered from 58 percent to 53 percent. The maps were defended by Board of Apportionment members Governor Mike Beebe (D) and Attorney General Dustin McDaniel (D). Crumbly (who is black) lost to state Rep. Keith Ingram (who is white) in the May primary. The hearing began on May 7. A panel of three federal judges on May 9 dismissed Secretary of State Mark Martin (R) from the suit. The court ruled it would not delay the May 22 primary as it considered the case. On September 17, a three-judge panel upheld the new districts, rejecting Crumbly's allegations. The judges stated that the decrease was an unintended consequence, not purposeful discrimination, saying, "This may be regrettable, but it is not unconstitutional." The ruling went on to say, "We find credible Governor Beebe's and Attorney General McDaniel's testimony that they did not engage in intentional discrimination or know that Representative Ingram, or any other white incumbent, would run for senator against Senator Crumbly in Senate District 24 at the time that the district map was drawn." Crumbly's lawyer, James Valley, filed a notice of appeal with the court on October 17. References

California

See also: Redistricting in California Republicans threaten lawsuit Republicans announced in August 2011 that they might challenge the new legislative district maps. California Republican Party Chairman Tom Del Beccaro said they might file a referendum on August 16 for the 2012 statewide ballot to overturn the maps. After the maps were approved, the California Supreme Court issued an order that any lawsuits be submitted electronically to the court in order to expedite the process. Registered voters had until September 29 (45 days) to file a challenge to the new maps. Meanwhile, Republicans were not the only critiquing the final map. The Mexican-American Legal Defense Fund (MALDEF) issused a statement that the group was disappointed in the final product. The National Association of Latino Elected Appointed Officials (NALEO) also expressed concern that the new maps would dilute the Hispanic vote. Senate map lawsuit On September 15, 2011, Republicans filed a lawsuit seeking to repeal the new California State Senate map that was approved by the California Citizens Redistricting Commission. The suit -- which was prepared by the Fairness and Accountability in Redistricting (FAIR) organization -- asked the court to throw out the map and draw a new one. Charles Bell Jr, a Sacramento attorney, filed the suit with the California Supreme Court. As of September 2011, FAIR had raised more than $500,000 for its referendum and lawsuit efforts. Congressional map lawsuit On September 29, 2011, a lawsuit was filed against the Congressional districts, this time by former Republican Congressman George Radanovich along with four others. This suit asked the court to appoint a special master to draw a completely new map for all 53 districts. "I think everyone deserves a fair and unbiased commission, but we didn't get one. As a Republican, I hope the master appointed by the state supreme court, if this lawsuit is successful, will do a fair and unbiased job," Radanovich said. In October 2011, Democratic U.S. House Representative Joe Baca announced that he supported the lawsuit. Baca said the commission-approved map would weaken minority influence in his district. Commission asks suits to be thrown out In October 2011, attorneys for the California Citizens Redistricting Commission requested that the California Supreme Court toss out lawsuits related to the new maps. The commission's response to the suits can be found here. Both lawsuits dismissed On October 26, 2011, the California Supreme Court unanimously rejected the two lawsuits that had been filed by Republicans against the Congressional and State Senate maps. In throwing out the suits, the Court also rejected GOP requests for an emergency order to halt implementation of the maps. The court vote was 7-0. "We're disappointed that the court denied the petition on the Senate districts without a hearing," said Charles H. Bell, an attorney for the plaintiffs. Appeal to federal government After the lawsuits were rejected by the Supreme Court, GOP leaders filed arguments with the Department of Justice, charging that the Senate map was not legal because it diluted Latino voting power. Radanovich and four other plaintiffs announced they would file a lawsuit in federal district court because the state court had already dismissed a prior lawsuit. On February 10, a federal judge dismissed a lawsuit filed by a group of Republicans over the new congressional district map. The suit's dismissal meant that commission-drawn maps would be used in the 2012 elections. Additional federal suit At the end of November 2011, a group of Republicans led by former Governor George Radanovich filed a suit in federal court alleging that the congressional map violated the Voting Rights Act and U.S. Constitution. A similar suit was thrown out by the state court earlier that year. The lawsuit centered on the districts of three Democratic incumbents: Karen Bass, Maxine Waters, and Laura Richardson. Motion to stay Senate map The group that filed a referendum to withdraw the new California State Senate map filed a motion on December 2, 2011 to request that the court immediately put a hold on using the newly drawn district map. Instead, the group requested one of three options: have a special master draw the map, use old districts, or use the new California State Assembly map and create Senate districts that combine two Assembly districts each. January 2012 On January 10, 2012, the California Supreme Court heard oral arguments regarding what state senate map to use in the 2012 elections. The state was reviewing submitted signatures for a referendum on the new map. If the referendum qualified, the court would decide whether the map would still be used or if a different interim map would instead be drawn up. At the hearing, GOP lawyers asked the court to throw out the new Senate map for the 2012 elections. The legal fight was tied to the 47-word passage of the California Constitution which uses the phrase "likely to qualify" regarding a map being removed by referendum. The court had 90 days to issue a ruling. Counties had until February 24, 2012 to check signatures. Motion denied On January 27, 2012, the State Supreme Court upheld the state Senate maps drawn by the California Citizens Redistricting Commission. The high court ruled that even if the referendum to toss the Senate maps qualified for the ballot, the new commission-drawn map should be used in the 2012 election. References

Colorado

See also: Redistricting in Colorado Major parties file lawsuits Both major parties filed suit as the legislative session came to an end. In each case, a well known attorney and a group of plaintiffs representing each party in the state seven Congressional district filed the case. Mark Grueskin, a Denver based attorney with substantial experience litigating for progressive political causes, filed the Democratic case. For the GOP, Ryan Westfall took the lead. Even that did not go smoothly, as, of Denver's 24 federal district court judges, the one randomly assigned to the redistricting suit, William Hood, once worked at the same law firm as Democratic attorney Mark Grueskin. Speculation over what that would mean for the looming case was immediate and rampant. Judge Hood had the power either to consider maps that failed to clear the legislature or to order that new ones be drawn. Publicly, advocates of an independent redistricting commission renewed their criticisms and Republican legislators openly speculated that Democrats had deliberately run the process to ground in order to put redistricting before left-leaning courts. Columnist Mike Rosen publicly called on Governor Hickenlooper to call a special session and preserve redistricting as a legislative enterprise. The Colorado Hispanic Bar Association and the Colorado Latino Forum joined the lawsuit, saying they wanted to be able to review the proposed maps to see if they diluted the Hispanic vote prior to releasing their own proposals. Attorney for the Democrats Mark Grueskin opposed the motion, saying all groups should have to release proposed maps on the same date. Lawsuits consolidated, date set Ultimately both redistricting cases were consolidated under Denver District Court Judge Robert Hyatt. At the beginning of June, Hyatt set a trial date of Monday, October 17, 2011. He told both sides, represented by counsel at the hearing, "However long it takes we can accommodate you. That’s not meant to encourage you." Secretary of State Scott Gessler had the ignominious distinction of being named in both lawsuits--Deputy AG Maurice Knaizer represented him. In addition, the entire matter went forward without the benefits of HB 1276, J. Paul Brown's bill offering judicial guidelines on redistricting, as the bill never got before the Senate before the session ran out. Deadline for lawsuit maps set As the redistricting lawsuit moved forward, Judge Robert Hyatt ordered both major parties to submit their redistricting proposals by August 22. Groups that joined the lawsuit later had until September 2. The trial was set for October 17, 2011. Parties release maps Democrats and Republicans both filed their plans for new congressional maps in court on August 22. Republicans stressed continuity, saying their map, which they called “Minimum Disruption,” made the least amount of changes possible. The Democrats’ proposal, on the other hand, pushed for competitive districts, sometimes even to the detriment of Democratic incumbents. President of the Senate Brandon Shaffer announced his run for the 4th congressional district in July. Under the Democratic proposal his hometown would have moved into the 2nd district, which was then represented by fellow Democrat Jared Polis. Shaffer pushed for his party's plan, but with the hope that his hometown remained in the 4th. “It’s impossible to predict what a court will ultimately decide, but I’m confident we’ll end up with a map that’s fair and competitive. I believe that means Longmont will remain in the 4th Congressional District,” he said. Democrats accused Republicans of attempting to simply retain the status quo with their map, hurting voters in the process, while Republicans said Democrats opposed the very maps they submitted 10 years ago because the math changed in favor of the GOP. Other redistricting plans The Latino Forum and Colorado Hispanic Bar Association submitted a proposal on September 2, the deadline for groups that joined the suit. Their map took the San Luis Valley and Pueblo areas from the 4th congressional district and put Larimer County into the Boulder district. Additionally, Denver and Adams County cities would have constituted a district. Pueblo County District Attorney Bill Thiebaut submitted two maps - both put Pueblo with the Western Slope, while one divided Denver into three districts and the other kept the current boundaries. He stated, "I thought it was important to have a voice from Pueblo and southern Colorado in a case dominated by a throng of well-financed litigants from both political parties and special-interest groups." Trial begins Arguments in the case began in Denver District Court on October 11. Republicans insisted that Democrats were attempting to move 1.5 million voters into new districts to pick up additional congressional seats, while Democrats argued the makeup of the state significantly changed since district lines were drawn ten years previously. The court considered a half dozen maps. Western Slope lobby and promotional group Club 20, with support of Progressive 15 and Action 22, filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the case. Club 20 submitted a map that focused on the preservation of rural communities of interest in Western, Northern and Southern Colorado. Several members of Colorado's congressional delegation testified in the trial, including Democrats Ed Perlmutter and Jared Polis and Republican Scott Tipton. Closing arguments This map shows the plan for Congressional districts approved by the court Attorneys delivered their closing remarks in the case on October 31. Attorney Gina Rodriguez, representing the Colorado Hispanic Bar Association and the Colorado Latino Forum, attacked maps from both Republicans and Democrats as fostering partisan interests and failing to take Hispanic communities of interest into account. Democratic lawyer Mark Grueskin asked the judge to dismiss the map presented by the Latino groups for being race-based and, thus, unconstitutional. Republican lawyer Richard Westfall criticized the Democratic map for joining communities based on current issues while ignoring historical links between communities. Democratic map approved In a ruling issued November 10, Judge Hyatt decided in favor of the "Moreno/South" Democratic map, stating it "most accurately reflected and preserved current communities of interest in 2011." Hyatt went on to say "the Moreno approach to redistricting Colorado will also produce the maximum amount of competition of any of the realistically proffered maps in at least three districts — the 3rd, the 6th and the 7th" and "not only does the Moreno mapping approach reflect Colorado's current communities of interest, it holds the real possibility that voters will be as engaged in the electoral process as possible." Republicans appeal Republicans appealed the decision to the Colorado Supreme Court on November 16, the day after the Court rejected the newly drawn state legislative maps. The court heard arguments on December 1. Map upheld On December 5, the state Supreme Court upheld the lower court ruling, dismissing the argument that the map divided too many counties into multiple districts. This effectively put the Democrats' map in place. The court said a written opinion would be issued at a later date. The new map put Aurora into its own congressional district, split Douglas County and added Larimer County to the Boulder district. As a result, Colorado was expected to have at least three competitive races in 2012. Included among these was incumbent Rep. Mike Coffman (R), who was moved out of a safely Republican district into one that could go either way. References

Florida

See also: Redistricting in Florida Legal issues Litigation likely While redistricting related lawsuits have come to be expected, the addition of Amendments 5 & 6 led lawmakers to predict an increase in litigation during the 2011 cycle. To that end, the Senate increased its budget by over $9 million from the previous year in order to be prepared for the fights ahead. Senate President Mike Haridopolos explained “I let people know reapportionment costs a lot of money, and it will cost even more with Amendment 5 and 6. And we have to pay for it.” The House, meanwhile, did not raise its budget but rather tapped into a $30 million reserve of unspent funds from prior years. Senate Redistricting Chairman Don Gaetz said lawmakers spent nearly $10 million during the last redistricting cycle. Maps approved, lawsuits follow Following the Legislature's approval of redistricting maps on February 9, state Democrats immediately filed suit against the congressional map in state Circuit Court. Other community and advocacy groups planned to sue as soon as Governor Rick Scott (R) signed the maps. Both contended that the new districts violated the recently approved "fair districts" amendment. Republicans, however, maintained that plans fully complied with the new requirements. Senate Reapportionment Committee Chairman Don Gaetz (R) noted that even if the maps happened to favor Republicans, that doesn't prove (for the purposes of the amendment) that the maps were drawn with partisan intent. The Democratic Party's complaint can be downloaded here. A draft of the community groups' complaint can be found here. Congressional plan to stand for 2012 On April 30, a state court said that a lawsuit against Florida's congressional maps could move forward, but decided not to delay the 2012 elections while the case continued. Legal challenge to Senate districts On September 4, 2012, a number of individuals and groups, including the League of Women Voters, filed a lawsuit contending that the Florida Legislature did not follow the Fair Districts amendment for 14 Senate districts in the state. League President Deirdre Macnab stated, "We feel very strongly that the voters in Florida put these very specific rules in place and the Legislature simply did not follow them." The case will not be taken up until 2013 and thus will not impact the 2012 elections. References Lawsuit against Amendment 6 U.S. Representatives Mario Diaz-Balart (R) and Corrine Brown (D) challenged Amendment 6 in court, saying it violated the Voting Rights Act and "represents an impermissible effort by Florida to limit the discretion directly delegated by the United States Constitution to the Florida Legislature." They filed suit on November 3, 2010. Brown's district in Jacksonville was 50% black, while Diaz-Balart's district in Miami was 70% Hispanic. On January 11, 2011, Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi (R) filed a motion asking the U.S. District Court to dismiss the lawsuit, saying that it lacked jurisdiction in the case, citing Article I of the U.S. Constitution, based on the state's 11th Amendment immunity. The American Civil Liberties Union of Florida, along with the Florida State conference of NAACP branches and Democracia Ahora, joined the case as defendants. On March 1, five Democratic state legislators filed to join the lawsuit as defendants. This included state Sen. Arthenia Joyner and state Reps. Janet Cruz, Luis Garcia, Joseph Gibbons, and Perry Thurston. In a press release announcing the action, Florida Democratic Party Chairman Rod Smith said, “Florida Democrats will not sit back and allow the will of nearly 63% of Floridians to be frustrated or delayed by those who simply seek to deny Floridians fair elections in fair districts.” Due to his involvement in the case, Roll Call named Diaz-Balart one of the ten most influential Congressmen in redistricting. Brown was been criticized for siding with Diaz-Balart. Brown's oddly-shaped district benefited from racial considerations that might be curtailed under the new amendments. House involvement On Monday, January 24, the Florida House of Representatives formally filed to join the challenge against the congressional redistricting measure. <iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/96rljpzqPYQ?showsearch=0&modestbranding=1" width="350" height="263" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="true"></iframe> According to House spokesperson Katie Betta, "The U.S. Constitution delegates authority to the state legislatures to draw congressional districts. The House believes its constitutional authority has been impeded by Amendment 6." As of January 27, Senate President Mike Haridopolos (R) declined to join the lawsuit, but said the case should be heard before submitting the amendments for approval. Criticism mostly came from Democrats, including Rep. Perry Thurston, who referred to it as an attempt to "thwart the will of the people," and Florida Democratic Party Chairman Rod Smith, who said that “clearly the Republicans are more concerned about saving their jobs rather than creating jobs for Floridians.”House Speaker Dean Cannon said he was waiting to hear from the House's legal team before deciding if he would challenge the legislative redistricting amendment as well. Cost to taxpayers Reporter Scott Maxwell of the Orlando Sentinel attempted to calculate how much taxpayer money had been spent by the House on legal bills for the Amendment 6 case, but was unable to receive an answer. Katie Betta, spokeswoman for House Speaker Cannon, stated, "We do not have a breakdown of fees for the Amendment 6 case." She was able to provide him with 47 pages of invoices showing that over $700,000 had been spent on all legal work related to redistricting as of February 10, 2011. State Rep. Scott Randolph (D) twice requested similar records, but was denied. Cannon argued that releasing the records would reveal the state's legal strategy in the case. District Court upholds, appeal promised On Friday, September 9, U.S. District Judge Ursula Ungaro rejected a lawsuit filed by U.S. Reps. Corrine Brown and Mario Diaz-Balart against Amendment 6. Publically, Brown and Diaz-Balart have argued that it would hinder the ability of minority voters to elect candidates of their choice. During oral arguments the previous week, their attorneys argued that the fair redistricting amendment unconstitutionally curtailed the legislature's authority under the Elections Clause and attempted to dictate election outcomes. However, in her 22-page opinion, Judge Ungaroo ultimately found that the amendment was a "valid regulation of the legislative process under the Elections Clause." In reaction to the news, Brown said, "I am disappointed in the judge’s ruling. But this is step one. We’re going all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court." Reports indicate that the Florida House spent an estimated $200,000 on legal fees challenging the law. The League of Women Voters and other groups urged the House to stop fighting the measure and draw maps in compliance with the amendments. Amendment 6 was tied up in legal challenges since voters approved it on November 3, 2010. The Amendment established new guidelines for congressional redistricting in order to ensure fair districts that are "as equal in population as feasible" and use "city, county and geographical boundaries." The full decision can be found here. Brown, Diaz-Balart, and State House file appeal On September 29, the Florida House of Representatives announced that it would join the federal appeal of Amendment 6. US Reps. Corrine Brown (D) and Mario Diaz-Balart (R) promised to appeal after a federal judge upheld Florida’s congressional redistricting amendment earlier in the month. The House drew controversy for joining the initial lawsuit and spending taxpayer dollars to fight an amendment that garnered more than 60% of the vote. Reports indicate that the Florida House spent an estimated $200,000 on legal fees challenging the law. Plaintiffs argued that the amendment unconstitutionally restricts the Legislature's authority under the Elections Clause. The notice of appeal can be found here. Arguments heard in appeal The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments on January 10 in the appeal of Brown v. Browning. US Reps. Corrine Brown (D) and Mario Diaz-Balart (R) argued that the US Constitution gave only state legislatures prerogative over the redistricting process. 11th Circuit upholds amendments On January 31, a panel of judges from the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Florida Amendment 6 which mandated non-partisan congressional redistricting. The lawsuit, Brown v. Browning, was filed by US Reps. Corrine Brown (D) and Mario Diaz-Balart (R). Brown and Diaz-Balart argued that the US Constitution gives state legislatures alone prerogative over the redistricting process. The Florida House of Representatives intervened as a plaintiff in the lawsuit. The full decision can be found here. References

Georgia

See also: Redistricting in Georgia Dekalb County schools Residents of Dekalb County rallied to prevent school closures. Under a redistricting plan -- proposed by interim Superintendent Ramona Tyson on February 7, 2011 -- the county would close eight schools, impacting nearly 9,000 students at a savings of $12.4 million a year. The original plan called for closing 14 schools but was scaled back due to the public outcry. The plan was an attempt to deal with 11,300 empty seats currently in county schools in order to generate more state funding. The revised plan eliminates 5,125 of those seats, leaving 6,185. Full information is available on the Dekalb County Schools website. Legal action On March 7 the school board adopted Tyson's plan by a vote of 7-2 in favor. Of the eight schools to close, six would be decommissioned with two being put on "inactive status," which allows the board to reopen them if they see fit. A number of citizens were critical of the plan, with one parent, Tasha Walker, filing a lawsuit seeking an immediate injunction against the decision of the board. Prior to the vote, a group of Dekalb County parents hired attorney Lee Parks to represent them if the board voted to redraw attendance lines separating Vanderlyn and Austin Elementary schools. Parks stated the issue, "When you peel back the curtain, it’s creating two white schools. I think the new board member, Ms. Jester, thinks that’s some sort of political mandate that she got when she was elected.” Parks and the parents allege that Jester intended to segregate the schools, saying that only children in single-family homes would be able to attend the better schools under the plan. Jester denied the accusations, saying that she provided input on the plan but only considered geography and school capacity, not race, socioeconomic status or housing. New cities and minority voting power Following the release of 2010 census data, the Georgia Legislative Black Caucus filed a lawsuit on March 28 seeking the dissolution of five cities in Dekalb and Fulton counties. The suit against the state claimed that normal procedures were circumvented in order to create "super-majority white" cities, which dilute minority votes and violate the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the U.S. Constitution. Civil Rights Movement veteran, Rev. Joseph Lowery, also joined the lawsuit. On June 10, the Georgia Attorney General's Office filed a motion to have the lawsuit dismissed, arguing that the formation of the cities "does not diminish anyone’s existing right to vote and did not violate the Voting Rights Act." Population figures 2010 census figures showed Fulton County was 44.5% white and 44.1% black, while DeKalb County was about 54% black and 33.3% white. The cities that the suit sought to dissolve, all created since 2005, showed the following ratios: City Year formed  % white in 2010  % black in 2010 Sandy Springs 2005 65% 20% Milton 2006 76.6% 9% Johns Creek 2006 63.5% 9.2% Chattahoochee Hills 2007 68.6% 20% Dunwoody 2008 69.8% 12% References

Hawaii

See also: Redistricting in Hawaii Big Island Democrats challenge redistricting plan In October 2011, Sen. Malama Solomon and several other Democrats filed suit, challenging the Hawaii Reapportionment Commission's decision to include most of the state's non-resident population in its redistricting counts. In past redistricting efforts, the state had excluded non-resident military and student populations. Their inclusion in 2011 redistricting calculations boosted the population of Oahu and deprived the Big Island of additional representation. The Commission argued that it excluded all the non-residents that it could given vague data. A copy of the petition can be found here. Kona lawyer files second challenge On October 13, 2011, attorney Mike Matsukawa of Kona filed a lawsuit challenging Hawaii's redistricting plans. Unlike the first lawsuit which centered on the fact that non-residents were included, Matsukawa argued that the Reapportionment Commission did not try in "good faith" to exclude non-residents. He contended that the commission's eleventh-hour decision to exclude some non-residents was partially responsible for its inability to exclude them all. Matsukawa suggested that the late decision did not allow enough time to determine the actual feasibility of separating out non-residents. A copy of the petition can be found here. Governor, Reapportionment Commission file briefs On November 25, 2011, the Hawaii Reapportionment Commission filed a brief defending the state's redrawn political lines against two legal challenges. Filed by Sen. Malama Solomon and several other Democrats, the first lawsuit challenged the Hawaii Reapportionment Commission's decision to include most of the state's non-resident population in its redistricting counts--a change of policy that cost the Big Island a new Senate seat. Unlike the first lawsuit which centered on the mere fact that non-residents were included, the second lawsuit argued that the Reapportionment Commission did not try in "good faith" to exclude non-residents. In past redistricting efforts, the state excluded non-resident military and student populations. However, the Commission argued that it excluded all the non-residents that it could given vague data. Named as a defendant in the first challenge, Hawaii Gov. Neil Abercrombie sided with the plaintiffs and asked the court to order the Commission to start over. The Commission, in turn, asked for the cases to be dismissed and for their attorney fees to be reimbursed by the plaintiffs. The cases were heard by the Hawaii Supreme Court. Redistricting plans overturned On Wednesday, January 4, 2012, Hawaii's Supreme Court sided with plaintiffs in two lawsuits challenging the state's legislative redistricting plans. The court ruled that non-residents could not be considered in reapportionment. The Hawaii Reapportionment Commission was ordered to redraw the maps. Earlier in the year, the commission decided to consider some of the state's non-resident population in its redistricting calculations. The orders in the two cases can be found here and here. Commission asks Supreme Court to reconsider On January 13, the Hawaii Redistricting Commission asked the Hawaii Supreme Court to reconsider its overturned redistricting plans. The commission argued that the representation provided by Deputy Attorney General Russell Suzuki was inadequate. The commission sought private counsel, but the Attorney General refused to either procure or pay for other attorneys. Notably, Governor Neil Abercrombie (D) sided with the plaintiffs despite being named a defendant in the case. The AG's office defended Suzuki's legal representation. It was revealed that the invalidated maps cost Hawaii taxpayers around $600,000. In addition, some speculated that adjusted redistricting data might not be available in time to make revisions to the map. Hawaii's signature filing deadline was June 5 and the primary was scheduled for August 11. Federal lawsuit filed On April 6, Hawaii Rep. Mark Takai (R) and several non-resident military personnel filed a federal lawsuit over the revised redistricting map. In revising the redistricting map, the Hawaii Reapportionment Board removed 100,000 non-residents from their calculations. These revisions were ordered by the Hawaii Supreme Court following a state lawsuit. The petition in the lawsuit can be found here. Lawsuit can move forward A federal challenge of Hawaii's revised redistricting maps got the go-ahead on April 10, 2012. A three-judge federal panel heard the case. The original maps were struck down by state courts for including non-resident military personnel and students in population calculations. The federal suit argued that these individuals should have been included. Elections, lawsuit can proceed On May 22, a federal panel refused to overturn Hawaii's redistricting plans. The court's denial of a preliminary injunction allowed both the lawsuit and the state's elections to proceed. The lawsuit argued that non-resident military personnel and students should have been included in the state's redistricting calculations. However, the court held that overturning the plan would not allow sufficient time to implement an alternative. The court's order can be found here. References

Idaho

See also: Redistricting in Idaho Failure of first commission On September 7, 2011, Secretary of State Ben Ysursa filed a lawsuit in state Supreme Court against the redistricting commission asking the court to order the commission to reconvene with 60 days to finish their job. The same day Republican Commissioners Evan Frasure, Lorna Finman and Lou Esposito filed suit against the commission, asking the court to adopt their proposed congressional map C38 and order the commission to reconvene for three days. Additionally the GOP commissioners asked the court to clarify which took precedent - the constitutional provision that counties should not be split, or the state law stating districts should only include multiple counties if they are linked by state highways. Ysursa also asked for clarification on the hierarchy of what they should legally consider. In a brief ruling on September 9, the court dismissed both lawsuits, stating that they had no legal authority at that point. Supreme Court Clerk Stephen Kenyon explained, "Unless the commission adopts a plan, the statutes and Idaho Constitution do not give the Idaho Supreme Court jurisdiction to act." However, the ruling said that the court would hear cases challenging the 2002 maps and their effect on the 2012 primary and general elections. Twin Falls County suit On November 16, 2011, Twin Falls County filed suit in Idaho Supreme Court against the new legislative redistricting map for what they said was an unconstitutional division of 11 counties. They were joined by the counties of Kootenai, Owyhee and Teton, along with several cities. Under the new map Twin Falls County was split into three districts, something they said put voters at a disadvantage. Twin Falls County Prosecutor Grant Loebs offered an alternative map that was said to create districts which kept more counties intact and was more uniform in population than the current map. The map they submitted split only 6 counties, as opposed to the current map which divided 11. The petition argued that cities shouldn't be considered communities of interest. “Cities change constantly, they grow and they expand, whereas county borders are fixed and never change. So that's part of the problem with saying that cities are a community of interest,” Loeb stated. The Idaho Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case on January 5, 2012. Before the court, Loebs stated that, per the state constitution, counties can only be split if necessary to meet the federal one-person, one-vote requirement. Loebs said his plan split just five counties, showing that the other splits were unnecessary and made the map unconstitutional. Idaho Deputy Attorney General Brian Kane argued that the redistricting commission had some discretion in the matter. "The goal should be: 'What is the best defensible plan?" he said. The court took the arguments under advisement and said they would issue a written ruling soon, but did not state when that would be. Candidate filing begins on February 27. Maps thrown out In a 4-1 decision the Idaho Supreme Court sided with Twin Falls, throwing out the map on January 18, 2012. The justices said they could not declare a map constitutional that split 12 of the state's 44 counties, more than was necessary to meet federal standards. Secretary of State Ben Ysursa said he would reconvene the redistricting commission as soon as possible. Court officials said the decision rendered all other pending redistricting lawsuits moot. Northern counties lawsuit In late November, seven North Idaho counties were said to be planning a second lawsuit to challenge the new legislative map. Attorney Christ Troupis explained these counties sought a different map than the one pushed for in the Twin Falls suit, "They would prefer to have a plan that doesn’t necessarily split the least number of counties, but effectively and appropriately represents the interests of all of its citizens and makes sure that nobody’s disenfranchised, and to do that, you have to split some counties.” The counties were Bonner, Boundary, Benewah, Lewis, Idaho, Shoshone and Clearwater. The suit was filed the second week in December by attorney Christ Troupis on behalf of Boundary, Bonner, Benewah, Shoshone, Clearwater, Idaho and Lewis counties. It asked the court to adopt either the North Idaho portion of L-82, a plan drawn up by the first commission, or L-76, which divides only five counties. According to the complaint, the current plan, L-87, hurt the seven counties, creating oddly shaped districts. Affidavits by Speaker of the House Lawerence Denney and Lou Espositio, a member of the first redistricting commission, criticized the second commission, with Denney stating his belief that the state Supreme Court was wrong to order a second commission. The suit also criticized the lawsuit brought by the state's four other counties, which argued that counties were unnecessarily split. The case became moot when the state Supreme Court ruled the maps were invalid in the Twin Falls case on January 18, 2012. References

Illinois

See also: Redistricting in Illinois Brady v. Madigan Illinois GOP Chair Pat Brady and the state Republican Party filed a lawsuit on May 11, 2011 asking the Supreme Court to declare the redistricting process tiebreaking provision in violation of the state constitution. Additionally, the suit sought to stop the legislature from finishing redistricting until the court declared a ruling. In the past, ties have been broken by drawing a name from a hat. In 2011, however, Democrats had the numbers to pass a map without any Republicans. Brien Sheahan, general counsel for the Illinois GOP, said the suit was filed when Republicans began to see how Democrats were drawing the map. He stated, “The court could certainly supervise an expedited process that would be more open, more transparent, that would produce fairer districts.” Oh June 15, the Illinois Supreme Court declined to take the case. Radogno v. Illinois State Board of Elections Republican Senate leader Christine Radogno and House Republican leader Tom Cross filed a federal lawsuit on July 21 seeking to invalidate the legislative maps drawn by Democrats. They alleged the new maps unfairly targeted Republicans and violated the Voting Rights Act by discriminating against African-Americans and Hispanics, as well as violating the state constitution's compactness requirement. According to the suit, "The bizarre shapes of several districts … is in furtherance of a deliberate attempt to enhance Democrats' prospects for re-election and target Republicans to prevent their re-election," while many districts "slither across traditional lines in order to place multiple incumbent Republicans into one district." The case was to be heard by a three-judge panel in U.S. District Court. If successful, either parts or the whole of the map could have been redrawn. In September, the organization African Americans for Legislative Redistricting asked to be added as a defendant to the case. The coalition of civil rights groups helped Democrats in drawing the new boundaries. On December 7, a federal panel threw out the suit, dismissing charges of racial gerrymandering and dilution of Latino voting strength. Radogno issued a statement saying, "We will carefully review our options. Our goal of providing all Illinois citizens a fair opportunity to elect representatives of their choice for the next decade remains. The map crafted by the majority particularly weakens the ability of minority voters to exercise their voting rights. This opinion could further weaken their position." Committee for a Fair and Balanced Map v. Ill. State Board of Elections Illinois Republicans filed suit against the new Congressional districts in July 2011, arguing they violated Hispanic voting rights and were severely gerrymandered. In September, plaintiffs asked a federal court to force the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee to produce documents requested in a subpoena. They sought to discover what role the national Democratic Party played in drawing the new district lines. An order issued by a three-judge federal court panel in October allowed Republicans to find out the identities of experts and consultants used by Democrats when redrawing the lines. The panel also ruled that lawmakers and their staff were immune from providing documents that were not based on objective facts. The decision stated, "Full public disclosure would hinder the ability of party leaders to synthesize competing interests of constituents, special interest groups and lawmakers, and draw a map that has enough support to become law. This type of legislative horse trading is an important and undeniable part of the legislative process." GOP seeks injunction The Illinois Republican Party filed a request for a permanent Federal injunction on November 4, 2011 seeking to prevent the new Congressional districts from being implemented. Citing emails and other correspondence between Democratic state party leaders and national leaders, Republicans claimed they worked together to create a map favorable to Democrats. The GOP argued that the new map was unconstitutional as it was politically gerrymandered and diluted Latino representation. Court hearings began on November 17 and ended the next day. The fate of the suit would be determined by three federal judges. The date for a decision, however, was unknown, and with the signature filing deadline approaching on December 5, there was talk that the date might be moved. Indeed, on November 22, U.S. District Judge Joan Lefkow pushed back the filing deadline for candidates wishing to run for U.S. House to December 23–27. If the suit was not resolved by December 21, the deadline would be moved again. Democratic Memos In November, Republicans turned up Democratic memos between the national and state party organizations that showed the two working together on redrawing districts. In a memo dated May 24, Ian Russell, Midwest Political Director for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, wrote to Illinois Senate President John Cullerton (D), "A critical part of the remapping process is altering the districts of incumbent Republicans to complicate their paths back to Washington." The portion of the memo was titled "Destabilizing Republican Incumbents." Another email written by Eric Lausten, chief of staff to U.S. Rep. Daniel Lipinski, to Tim Mapes -- the top staffer for Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan (D) -- implied the Congressman's input in the ultimate map. "Tim -- Just finished revising the map for Congressman Lipinski's 3rd District. I thinks its moving in right direction..." Congressional Dems to pay for lawyers Illinois' Democratic congressional delegation was set to pay $500,000 in order to defend the new Democrat-drawn congressional map in court. The office of Attorney General of Illinois Lisa Madigan told the state's congressional Democrats that it did not have the lawyers and skills necessary to defend the map and, to that end, hired three outside lawyers, instructing the Democrats to pay the bill. The eight members of the congressional delegation each sent a check for $10,000 to the National Democratic Redistricting Trust on August 31, and were working to raise more. At a meeting in mid-September to determine how Democrats were going to pay the court fees, U.S. Reps. Danny Davis, Jesse Jackson, Jr. and Bobby Rush - the three African-Americans in the delegation - refused to pay. The congressmen raised issues relating to Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, questioning if the new map was truly fair after all. Hispanics outnumber blacks in Illinois, yet the new map created three districts with majority black population, but only one majority Hispanic population. Map upheld On December 15, the federal court panel hearing the case said they agreed with the Republican complaint that the map was "a blatant political move to increase the number of Democratic congressional seats," but that Republicans "failed to present a workable standard by which to evaluate such claims." The court also rejected the argument that the map diluted Latino voting strength, stating Republicans failed to present enough evidence that the legislature intentionally sought to discriminate against Latinos. With the suit resolved, candidate filing for congressional races began on December 23 and went through December 27. The original deadline had been December 5, but had to be moved back due to the then pending lawsuit. League of Women Voters v. Quinn The League of Women Voters of Illinois filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court against Gov. Pat Quinn on August 16, alleging the new legislative maps were not drawn fairly. President Jan Dorner said the maps should be drawn for the voters, not the parties. The suit argued that Democrats violated the First Amendment by using partisan voting information to redraw district boundaries, stating, "The General Assembly and governor have unlawfully selected residents to speak, debate, assemble and vote in these districts based upon their political viewpoints and opinions, without safeguards against the misuse of such criteria to regulate or abridge First Amendment rights for partisan ends." On October 28, 2011, the three-judge U.S. District Court dismissed the case. Schmidt v State Board of Elections The Illinois Green Party filed a lawsuit on October 24, 2011 seeking to retain its qualified party status in the U.S. House and state legislative districts where it received 5% of the vote in November 2010. Under state law, the party receiving at least 5% automatically qualifies for the next election in the district. However, the state argued that, due to redistricting, the qualified status does not apply. References

Indiana

See also: Redistricting in Indiana Annexation lawsuit In the three years prior to redistricting, the city of Jeffersonville annexed several nearby neighborhoods. However, a resident of one such neighborhood, Bruce Herdt, sued the city over its drawing of city council districts in the newly added neighborhoods. The suit alleged that the city initially allotted too little representation to the neighborhoods by using 2000 census data. Herdt contended that 2010 census data corroborated his earlier estimates and substantiated his claims. However, Judge William G. Hussman dismissed the lawsuit, saying that the 2000 census data was the best data to use at the time. The city argued that the use of alternative estimates did not conform to state law or precedent. The city planned to redistrict again before municipal elections in 2015. Herdt planned to appeal. References

Kentucky

See also: Redistricting in Kentucky Lawsuit filed against leg maps On January 26, House Republicans filed suit against the Democrats' chamber map. The GOP lawmakers argued that the plan unnecessarily divided counties. The approved plan split four more counties than the Republican alternative. On January 30, Senator Kathy Stein (D) joined the lawsuit, challenging the Senate redistricting plan. She contended that the changes to her district disenfranchised Lexington voters. Judge postpones filing deadline On January 31, 2012 a state circuit judge hearing the lawsuit against the state's legislative maps extended the filing deadline for candidates from January 31 to February 7. The lawsuit was brought by members of the minority parties in each legislative chamber. The delay was expected to put legislative activity on hold as incumbents waited to size up their fall challengers. Judges tosses leg maps, appeal planned On February 7, a Franklin Circuit Court ruled that Kentucky's new legislative districts were unconstitutional, saying that the districts exhibited unacceptable population disparities and divided too many counties--both violations of the Kentucky Constitution. The state planned to appeal the ruling to the Kentucky Supreme Court. Decision appealed The state officially appealed a Franklin Circuit Court decision which invalidated Kentucky's new legislative redistricting plan. The appeal was fast-tracked by the Kentucky Supreme Court. Supreme Court hears appeal On February 24, 2012, the Kentucky Supreme Court heard arguments in the appeal of a County Circuit judge's ruling that overturned the state's new legislative districts. Since county precinct maps were based on the state maps, counties could be forced to revise their plans if the decision was upheld. The Circuit Court ruling can be found here. Supreme Court overturns maps On February 24, after hearing oral arguments, the Kentucky Supreme Court overturned the state's legislative districts, upholding an earlier Circuit Court ruling. The Circuit Court held that the districts exhibited unacceptable population disparities and divided too many counties--both violations of the Kentucky Constitution. As a consequence of the High Court's ruling, 2012 elections took place in Kentucky's existing legislative districts. In addition, since the filing deadline already passed, candidates could not change their filing. This forced some candidates whose residences laid outside the old district lines to withdraw. A full opinion by the Supreme Court is still pending and legislators may wait until 2013 to revise the plans. The Supreme Court order can be found here. Legislature to pay attorneys' fees In August 2012, Judge Shepherd ruled that the Legislative Research Commission would have to pay attorneys fees for House Republicans and Sen. Stein. The LRC, which consists of the majority and minority leaders from both chambers, used money from the legislative budget to oppose the lawsuit. On November 15, 2012, Shepherd ordered the LRC to pay the full amount billed by plaintiffs, which came to a total of $186,855.51. References

Louisiana

See also: Redistricting in Louisiana Number of Congressional districts Less than a month after winning re-election, Louisiana Attorney General Buddy Caldwell began a legal battle to keep Louisiana's seven congressional seats. Under new congressional district plan, a result of national redistricting based on the 2010 census, Louisiana has six seats in Congress - one fewer than it has had for the last 10 years. On November 14, 2011, Caldwell's office filed a lawsuit with the U.S. Supreme Court, alleging the census "included illegal foreign nationals along with holders of guest-worker visas and student visas" in it's 2012 national population count. He explained "Louisiana's complaint simply asks the court to require the federal government to re-calculate the 2012 apportionment of U.S. House of Representatives seats based on legal residents, just as the U.S. Constitution requires." Lawsuit against Jindal In late September 2012, Ron Ceasar, a candidate for US House of Representatives, filed suit against Gov. Bobby Jindal (R) for allegedly conspiring with the state Legislature to dilute minority voting strength in the congressional redistricting plan. The suit sought to temporarily stop the November 6, 2012 congressional elections in districts 3, 4, and 5. According to the suit, “The governor of Louisiana, personally got involved in the reapportionment of these congressional districts due to conflict of interest for electing and reelecting white republicans to office.” Jindal's executive council Elizabeth Murrill denounced the move, stating, “This is a frivolous lawsuit. The (U.S.) Justice Department already cleared this plan.” References

Maine

See also: Redistricting in Maine Congressional map timeline Maine's law required that the state wait until 2013 to redraw Congressional maps. Two citizens argued that this law was nonsensical when the data was already available. A lawsuit filed for them in federal court, Desena v. State of Maine, sought to have the timetable pushed forward. While the state's Constitution requires that maps for the state's House and Senate be drawn in 2013, the law mandating that Congressional maps be done at the same time was only a statute. Central to the complaint was information in the Census indicating Maine's two Congressional districts, based on the lines used in the 2010 elections that would have remained as they were for the 2012 election if the law stood, were out of balance and could under-represent southern Mainers. Independent voter lawsuit On August 22, 2011, independent voter Mike Turcotte filed a lawsuit that alleged the political parties had too much control over the map-drawing process. The suite indicated that the ratio of unenrolled voters to political parties on the redistricting commission was unequal to that of the voter registration in Maine, thereby violating "equal representation." The commission is made up of 15 members -- 14 of which are registered Democratic or Republican. Dan Billings, chief legal counsel for Governor Paul LePage (R) said the suit would "go away quickly." Billings was also a member of the 15-person reapportionment panel. References

Maryland

See also: Redistricting in Maryland Harford County lawsuit In Harford County the Republican-controlled County Council determined that the Democratic Party was a "fringe" party -- meaning it would be shut out of the redistricting process. In the previous election, Democrats only garnered 12 percent of the total votes, which was below the county-established 15 percent figure in order to be eligible to sit on the redistricting committee. Democrats were outraged, while Republicans argued that to make an exception for Democrats would open the door for third parties (Green Party, Libertarian Party, etc...) to file similar complaints. On Thursday, March 10, 2011, Democrats filed suit, seeking to stop any recommendations of the redistricting committee from being considered, thus making good on their threat to sue if two or more of their members weren't seated on the advisory commission charged with redistricting. While Harford's Charter explicitly contains the 15% threshold to be considered a major party and to be eligible for sitting on advisory committees, Democrats said the meaning of the charter changed over time. They based part of their legal argument on the fact that, if only the election results for the City Council President were removed and the polling percentage of Democratic candidates were reweighted, they would have pulled in 21.5% of the vote and thus would have exceeded the threshold. Dilution of agriculture-related electorates Maryland resident Howard Gorrell filed suit over the new congressional redistricting map in U.S. District court on October 27, 2011, arguing that it unnecessarily diluted the "voting power of agriculture-related electorates" in the 6th congressional district and was gerrymandered. The suit asked the court to assume jurisdiction and redraw the map. On January 19, 2012, U.S. District Judge William D. Quarles Jr. dismissed the suit, ruling against all of Gorell's arguments. Citizen/GOP lawsuit On November 10, 2011, nine Maryland citizens filed a joint lawsuit in federal court, charging the state with civil rights violations as a result of the recently approved Congressional districts. Expected to cost over $250,000, the suit was to be largely financed by the nonprofit Legacy Foundation of Iowa, with money from Republican Congressmen Roscoe Bartlett and Andy Harris. The plaintiffs put forth four main arguments alleging civil rights violations: the 5th Congressional District should be a majority-minority voting district, Districts 4 and 7 should have a stronger black vote, Districts 2 and 3 were politically gerrymandered, and the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment was violated in Montgomery County. Throwing the Party's support behind the suit, Maryland Republican Party Chairman Alex Mooney said, “We join the Fannie Lou Hamer PAC, the Legacy Foundation, Marylanders for Fair and Coherent Representation, and citizens from across Maryland to reaffirm our belief that redistricting should not be done solely on partisanship or incumbent preference. We are eager to see the Governor’s map remedied so that the rights of all Marylanders, regardless of race, geography or political affiliation, are not denied.” The lawsuit won an initial victory on November 21, 2011 when U.S. District Judge Roger Titus ruled the suit could go ahead and should be heard by a three-judge panel. The move was a blow to Maryland Attorney General Doug Gansler, who argued the case should be dismissed. On November 29, 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge William Traxler, Jr. announced a three-judge panel consisting of Judge Paul Niemeyer, Judge Alexander Williams and Judge Roger Titus to hear the case. Arguments were presented before the court on December 20. That same day the Attorney General's office filed pleadings asking the court to issue an opinion by the end of the week. Maryland's primary was April 3, 2012, with the deadline for congressional candidates falling on January 11. Under federal law, overseas ballots had to be sent out by February 17. A delayed ruling could have jeopardized the state’s ability to print up ballots in time. On December 23, 2011, the panel dismissed the suit, stating that the plaintiffs failed to meet the burden of proof for any of their claims. In regard to the allegation that the map discriminated against African-Americans by failing to create a third majority-black district, the court said the residents of the additional proposed district were not shown to be a single community of interest. Judge Paul Niemeyer explained, "The crucial weakness in the plaintiffs' evidence is that it concerns residents of their proposed congressional district in general, and not minority residents specifically. In the absence of this kind of specific evidence, we may not accept bare assertions that the area's African-American residents share the same characteristics, needs and interests." The panel also said plaintiffs failed to show the map was a partisan gerrymander. Representatives of the Fannie Lou Hamer Foundation Political Action Committee said they would take the case to the United States Supreme Court if they could find the resources. On January 20, 2012, the group filed a notice of appeal. Attorney Jason Torchinsky said the appeal focused on the law counting prisoners in their home districts, rather than where they are imprisoned. They did not appeal other arguments in the case, but planned to argue that all states should count population in the same manner for congressional reapportionment. If they did not succeed in appealing, opponents of the approved plan said they might start a petition drive to put the issues before voters in a fall referendum. In order to achieve that, organizers would have to collect 55,736 valid signatures, including 18,579 by May 31. The opponents followed through on this plan, and claimed to file the necessary amount of signatures for the first threshold. Commissioner Smith Lawsuit Frederick County Commissioner Paul Smith filed suit against the state's new congressional plan on November 22, 2011 for failing to design contiguous and compact voting areas. Smith filed the suit in the Maryland Court of Appeals and in Anne Arundel County Circuit Court, hoping for an expedited ruling. Under the approved map Frederick County is divided into two congressional districts - something that has not happened in some 200 years. The case in the Maryland Court of Appeals was rejected on procedural grounds on January 10, 2012. Referendum A referendum petition to overturn Maryland's congressional redistricting plan passed in October 2011 was on the November 6, 2012 ballot. Maryland Delegate Justin Ready, who spearheaded the move, announced March 27, 2012 that the referendum would move forward with collecting signatures. In order to qualify for the ballot supporters were required to collect a minimum of 55,736 valid signatures before June 1. Under the new map, the number of Carroll County delegates was reduced from four to three. Ready stated, "The map, which passed in October, takes Carroll County out of its traditional pairing with Western Maryland and splits us into two congressional districts. So, Taneytown is in the same district as Ocean City and Westminster is connected to Silver Spring in a district that is shaped like the country of Thailand." The Referendum was certified for the ballot in July and on July 26 the Maryland Democratic Party filed a lawsuit seeking to overturn the petition drive. Many of the signatures were collected through an online process which automatically fills in most of the information required on petitions. According to the suit, this process violated the law by filling out petitions with voter information. It also argued that at least 5,000 signatures that were certified as valid were in fact invalid. Striking these signatures would bring the total number below the required number to get the issue on the ballot. References

Michigan

See also: Redistricting in Michigan Challenge of congressional plan likely In August of 2011, a legal challenge to Michigan's new Congressional map seemed likely. Much of the controversy surrounded District 14, home to longtime Representative John Conyers (D). The plan would redraw Conyer's district to exclude 80 percent of his former territory, joining the remainder with Republican-leaning areas. The 14th Congressional District Democratic Organization issued a statement opposing the law, and U.S. Representatives Gary Peters (D) and Sander Levin (D) voiced support for a lawsuit. Black Caucus plans challenge to redistricting map Michigan's Legislative Black Caucus announced plans to challenge the state's redistricting plans in October 2011, calling the plans discriminatory. The suit was filed in federal court in October. Meanwhile, it seemed that Grosse Pointe Woods was moving away from its earlier interest in challenging the plan. The city's attorney determined that a lawsuit would be unlikely to succeed and that legal funds could be better spent elsewhere. Coalition challenges State House maps A number of advocacy groups joined forces to challenge Michigan's redrawn State House districts. In a lawsuit filed on December 8, 2011, the groups argued that the new maps would result in a 50 percent reduction in the number of minority representatives by weakening minority districts and pairing incumbents. Much of the criticism was focused on the Detroit area. A spokesperson for Gov. Rick Snyder (R), named in the lawsuit, defended the plans calling them legal and fair. The groups challenging the plan included: the Michigan State Legislative Black Caucus, the NAACP, the United Auto Workers, and Latino Americans for Social and Economic Development. DOJ to investigate Minority and labor groups challenging Michigan's State House districts received encouraging news in late 2011. The U.S. Department of Justice announced plans to investigate Michigan's legislative redistricting efforts. The decision comes after a December 21, 2011 meeting with attorneys for the plaintiffs. Lawsuit dismissed On March 23, 2012, a three-judge panel dismissed the challenge to Michigan's House redistricting plan. The challenge, brought by a group of labor and civil rights organizations, argued that the plan illegally diluted minority voting strength in the Detroit area. Local lawsuits Warren City Council lawsuit In May 2011, two candidates for an at-large seat in Warren challenged the validity of an initiative placed on the November ballot. The item, circulated as a petition, was officially an initiative to place the city's redistricting plan on the fall ballot. According to the plaintiffs, Eugene Sawyer and Dean Berry, it also improperly included language to reduce Warren's council from nine seats to seven and to make five of the seats into districts office, leaving a single pair of at-large positions. Saying that people may not have realized they were signing in support of that plan, Sawyer and Berry, representing "Warren Citizens Guarding Government," asked for a restraining order to keep the initiative off the ballot. The current City Council had by then already tabled the redistricting plan. The two men argued that the proposed map of districts disproportionately favored the wealthier northern half of the city, and that the map reflected an effort by existing office holders to entrench their positions. The sitting mayor, Jim Fouts, countered that the initiative passed and was set for the fall election months earlier, questioning why anyone would let so much time pass before challenging the language of the petition. The suit was filed on the eve of the deadline to announce a candidacy for any of the city's offices. By way of explanation, Berry said the group had hoped the Warren Council would hire attorneys to seek a court order on who should draw the new districts. Both men also admitted they signed the petition they challenged, claiming they were "hoodwinked" by the language. A representative of the Tea Party-affiliated group that circulated the measure said the effort was attempting to cut government costs and represented no effort to distribute power to certain groups. Oakland County lawsuit Former Sen. Mike Bishop (R), County Commissioner David Potts (R), and residents Janice Daniels and Mary Kathryn Decuir filed a lawsuit on June 20, 2011 against the Oakland County Apportionment Commission. According to the plaintiffs, the commission deliberated for only 34 minutes before passing the proposal. In addition, the suit alleged that new districts were not sufficiently compact, divided communities of interest, reflected partisan motivations, and packed minorities into majority-minority districts. Oakland County maps upheld On November 16, 2011, the Michigan Court of Appeals upheld the Oakland County Commission redistricting plan challenged by Republicans. The court found that the lines were legally permissible, meeting requirements for compactness, fair allocation of political power, and the protection of minority voting rights. At least one plaintiff, Potts, expressed an interest in appealing the decision. Democrats sue to block map After local Republicans lost their legal challenge to Oakland County's redistricting maps, state GOP lawmakers passed a law stripping the bipartisan committee of its redistricting authority and giving the power to the Republican-controlled Board of Commissioners. However, on January 4, 2012, Democrats sued to block the law, arguing that it violated the separation of powers. Republicans, on the other hand, defended the law as a cost-saving measure for the county. References

Minnesota

See also: Redistricting in Minnesota Democrats file suit On January 12, 2011, four Democrats filed suit in federal court over Minnesota redistricting. Attorneys for the plaintiffs raised concerns over whether politicians can draw the lines in a fair manner. The lawsuit asked the court to invalidate the current political boundaries and require leaders to submit their redistricting plans to the court. The lawsuit was initially postponed while legislators worked on a plan. However, following Gov. Dayton's veto of the legislature's proposed maps, the case was resumed. Republican attorneys argued that the case should first pass through the state courts before federal courts intervene. Republican file suit Several Republicans filed a redistricting lawsuit on January 21, 2011 in state court. The GOP's lawsuit was the second legal challenge filed over redistricting. Republicans also sought to intervene as plaintiffs in the first lawsuit, filed by Democrats earlier in January 2011. References

Mississippi

See also: Redistricting in Mississippi Unresolved election issues When on April 7, 2011, Mississippi legislators voted to adjourn for the weekend, it left redistricting still unfinished with pressing questions about the state's elections. Speaker McCoy prepared a statement for the press reading, in part, "Never in my life did I think I would ever live to see the day that a body of this Legislature would willingly cede its authority to a federal court. But that is what the Mississippi Senate is on the verge of doing." With no map finished in time for the June 1, 2011 filing deadline for elections, officials still planned to have Mississippi's 2011 elections be held, but the state could be forced to elect the same offices again in 2012 once a map is decided on. The state went through this process in 1991 and 1992. Doing so again would likely be a costly, embarrassing process and proof positive that the legislature failed to draw maps. Having missed its initial and extended deadlines, the legislature stood to lose control of the process to the federal courts. In early April, 2011, no one wanted to say for certain if back-to-back elections were in order. Governor Haley Barbour could have called a special session, but his office did not indicate early if that was a likely outcome. Calling an early session would have only been wise if the parties involved believed that it could produce a map, something more or less impossible to imagine in April 2011. Lieutenant Governor Phil Bryant favors a strict adherence to the Mississippi Constitution, calling for redistricting to be completed in the second year following the Census - that is, in 2012. However, a lesser know Constitutional provision empowers the legislature to "at any other time" draw maps for the House and Senate. Congressional maps, which could easily be delayed until early 2012, were not the problem, as federal midterms elections were not until November 6, 2012. It was the looming legislative elections that demanded completed maps for the State House and Senate. Per an estimate from the office of the Mississippi Secretary of State, a second set of primaries alone could cost half a million dollars; this estimate did not consider what counties and cities would have to spend. Such a predicament could have also triggered more lawsuits. Maine was already facing a lawsuit over the decision to delay drawing maps when Census data was available, and Mississippi could have conceivably followed in that path. Senate Democrats pushed for a vote on the resolution with the House map attached, but the majority quashed it. Soon after, 30-17, the upper chamber voted for sine die. Once the Senate adjourned for the year, Lt. Governor Bryant remarked: "For three weeks now, we've said, 'Come and talk to us, send someone to sit down and help negotiate. We have differences that we hope can be worked out.' "It has been deafening: 'No.'" While Barbour restated his willingness to recall lawmakers if an agreement was reached, Bryant stressed the folly of either chamber sitting without a solid agreement to vote on. Regular legislative sessions cost Mississippi approximately $20,000 a day while special session run close to $30,000 a day. Although most members of the House and Senate left Jackson and turned their attention to campaigning, a few key legislators supposedly remained to work on a plan. McCoy openly blamed Republicans for forcing the state to shoulder the cost of two legislative elections and a court battle for the sake of partisan advantage. Bryant denied ever having deliberately sought a judicial determination of redistricting and described the onerous prospect of two elections in two years as a necessary evil: "If that's what it takes to get a fair redistricting plan, I think it's a great investment Two elections would purge I think some of those old politicians that serve only their self-interests." Democrats, however, leveled that very allegation; "I think there was an effort from the very beginning to put the issue in court, so that’s where it is," was the opinion of Thomas Reynolds. NAACP state lawsuit Local NAACP filed Mississippi's first 2011 redistricting lawsuit on March 1, 2011 in an effort to push the qualifying deadline for candidates in the 2011 off-year elections back 90 days, to June 1, 2011. Such a move would provide the 12 counties named in the lawsuit with time to draw county-level district boundaries, an issue of no mean importance as would-be office holders weigh entering races and consider if they meet residency requirements. Counsel for the NAACP indicated more suits could follow. The same week, members of the legislative redistricting committee, who had already announced maps might be made available for public viewing in coming days, attempted to cool down speculation, saying they were going to take time and avoid past decades' missteps. This deliberation in releasing maps of Mississippi's new districts included the surprising admission that even lawmakers who did not sit on the redistricting committee had only seen single districts, as the statewide maps were kept under lock and key. NAACP federal lawsuit In response to the failure to pass a House plan, the NAACP filed Mississippi's first federal lawsuit on March 17, 2011. Representing the NAACP and three other plaintiffs was Hazelhurst-based attorney Carol Rhodes, along with one of the lead plaintiffs from the 1991 lawsuit. Hours before Rhodes brought suit, the Mississippi State Senate had voted 29-18 to invite conference from the House. Speaking to media, Rhodes echoed House Speaker's McCoy central argument, that the tradition of each house signing off on the other's map is itself reason enough for the Senate to acquiesce to the House map. Named as defendants were the Governor (who sent an open letter to legislative Republicans urging them to fight McCoy's bill), Attorney General, and Mississippi Secretary of State, along with election commission officials. On top of seeking the removal of redistricting to the courts, the NAACP wanted an immediate restraining order to prevent any other plan from being implemented. Southern District U.S. District Judge Dan Jordan, a George W. Bush appointee, was originally set to hear the case, ultimately ruling on the NAACP petition to have a federal judge take over the entire redrawing process. The NAACP also indicated it would have its own maps ready to submit to the court within days of filing. The lawsuit came as Speaker William McCoy confidently told media, "We're going to the Justice Department. We have nothing further to talk about with the Senate." McCoy also said he already has attorneys for the House working on a way to bypass the Senate and send his map directly to the Justice Department. Lt. Governor Bryant, President of the Senate and heavily involved in 2011 redistricting, described McCoy's tactics as "brinksmanship" and vowed the House would not pass a plan over Senate objections, saying, "I can assure you it will be done. I am not angry with anyone." On Monday, March 21, 2011, House leaders voted to join the lawsuit, with Tommy Reynolds and his House Apportionment and Elections Committee voting 10-4 to join, a party line split. Reynolds cited the cost of holding elections twice while making it clear all legal work for the NAACP lawsuit would be privately paid. The following week, Senate Democrats fell in line, voting in their Caucus to join the lawsuit. Meanwhile, the lawsuit had been moved to a new judge after Daniel Jordan recused himself when a family member filed to run for the state legislature. Named to replace him was Carlton Reeves, appointed to the federal bench in December 2010 and, before that, an attorney in Mississippi. Notably, Reeves was the lead attorney for the state's Democratic party in the aftermath of the 2000 Census, something that caused Republicans to immediately call for the new judge to recuse himself. Additionally, Reeves co-counsel in the 2001 legal battles, Rob McDuff, was once again representing House Democrats in 2011. Governor Haley Barbour, for his part, released a public statement saying he was playing no official or unofficial role in redistricting, and that his sole objection to the legislative plans was over a failure to consider population growth in some counties. Secretary of State Delbert Hosemann filed papers in federal court on April 1, 2011 asking a federal judge to dismiss to NAACP case, arguing that the Mississippi Constitution allowed the state to wait until 2012 to complete redistricting. If the courts accepted Hosemann's argument, it would mean the NAACP lawsuit would be dismissed as premature. The state Republican party partially backed Hosemann in an April 8, 2011 brief, which conceded the court had jurisdiction to hear the case but asked that Hosemann's argument, based on Section 254 of the state's Constitution, be given "full and careful consideration". On the evening of April 5, 2011, a local political blog tracking the redistricting process reported rumors that there was no real chance Reeves would recuse himself. They were indeed rumors as, in an order issued late on April 11, 2011, Reeves did recuse himself. Tom Lee became the third judge to preside over the case, notably before any arguments had actually been heard. Lee, a 1984 appointee under Ronald Reagan, was on the 1991 panel that ordered Mississippi to hold back-to-back elections. In recusing himself, Reeves cited not his previous work as an attorney for Democrats in redistricting but his own lifetime NAACP membership and the need to maintain an appearance of impartiality, saying, "a reasonable suspicion of partiality is too great a possibility to risk." He also stressed that he had no financial interest in the NAACP and had not held any actual office in the organization since heading his college chapter a quarter century earlier. Two Republicans, Delbert Hosemann and Phil Bryant, backed a special session in 2012, interpreting the state Constitution to allow and even mandate that. Acting independently of Mississippi's Democratic Attorney General, Hosemann, the Secretary of State, pushed his motion to dismiss, which Bryant openly endorsed.</ref> The state's Republican party, however, came out in favor on allowing the judicial action to proceed. Attorney General Jim Hood drafted an open response to Hosemann, saying running under current boundaries after Census data were available would violate federal law, and that two elections would be an unacceptable waste of money. NAACP lead attorney on the case Carol Rhodes challenged Bryant's take on the Constitution, saying, "The Constitution says the Legislature may redistrict at any time, which they did, February through March." Through Rhodes, the NAACP asked the court to order the Attorney General to submit the maps, including the technically unapproved House map, to the Justice Department. On June 7, 2011, the NAACP filed notice that it would take its suit to the U.S. Supreme Court. The organization argued that the 2011 elections should be blocked because district populations were unbalanced. Federal court panel The legislative failure to settle on maps left the process in the hands of a panel of three federal judges. In addition to Tom Lee, also presiding over NAACP v. Haley Barbour et al, sat on the panel. Joining him were Grady Jolly and Louis Guirola. Jolly and Lee were both Reagan appointees and Guirola was named to the bench by George W. Bush. All three judges were named by Chief Justice of the 5th Circuit Court, Edith Jones. In mid April 2011, Senator Terry Burton filed a motion asking for Senate candidates to be allowed to run under the new map, which did pass both maps, leaving only the contested House map up to the court. Lieutenant Governor Bryant went on the offensive, assuring Mississippians that judiciary scrutiny would be fair, telling attendees at a Hattiesburg meeting, "They don't care about political opponents, they don't care about political opportunities, they only care about the constitution I believe and what the plans should look like. And I think all of Mississippi can live with that." On the outside chance that an agreement could be reached in time for Barbour to recall the legislature, Senator Burton and Representative Reynolds continued working to tweak the map enough to make a special session worthwhile. Burton, through his own counsel, Andy Taggert, asked the panel to separate the Senate map, which had been approved, from the House map, which had never passed the Senate. When asked how the GOP would react to a court order that unapproved maps be submitted to the Justice Department, a Republican party attorney replied, "You'll get a lawsuit". Such stances had some merit, as the state's Constitution explicitly says maps are to be approved by both chambers before being used. First hearing Judge Lee ordered all parties involved in the lawsuit to appear before him on the morning of Friday, April 22, 2011. At the same time, Governor Barbour had expressed continued willingness to recall legislators and some leaders were quietly working on a compromise. After the day's hearing, Judge Lee offered no immediate indication of his ruling. At that status hearing, Robert McDuff, attorney for the House Republicans, and Democratic Attorney General Jim Hood both argued for "placeholder" elections in 2011; McDuff pressed for special elections under new maps in 2012 while Hood suggested drawing new maps for use in 2015 or even 2019. Hood added that paying for two elections would ultimately cost taxpayers less than paying for a protracted court battle. By the day of the hearing, the state had already covered $200,000 in legal costs. Two other options were put forward; first, to approve the contested maps on an "interim" basis, a position primarily supported by Democrats, and secondly to turn the project over to an expert, a so-called "special master", something sought by the state's Republican party and by Governor Haley Barbour. In addition, Secretary of State Delbert Hosemann was still pushing for doing nothing at all judicially and allowing the legislature to resume the matter in 2012. If the judges opted for back-to-back elections, they still lacked the power to order Governor Barbour to call such a special election. There was, however, at least one laugh in the packed chambers. When Republican attorney Michale Wallace was asked how he felt about leaving the entire matter to the U.S. Justice Department, he answered, "My friends in the Justice Department all lost their jobs", eliciting bipartisan laughter. The first hint of where the panel might come down was a statement issued on Friday, April 29, 2011, saying the judges were "inclined to issue an order" compelling Mississippi to hold its 2011 elections under the maps each chamber had created for its own districts. Such a ruling was explained as the best possible interim solution given that all parties agreed the existing maps were inadequate and given the looming June 1, 2011 qualifying deadline for primaries. That same weekend, Secretary of State Hosemann reiterated his preference for allowing the legislature to resume the task in 2012 in an open editorial. In part, he stated, "The decision does not pass constitutional muster, is short-sighted and sets a bad precedent for future redistricting." The court, meanwhile, wanted an interim plan in place by the first on June. Second hearing and decision The second hearing was set for Tuesday, May 10, 2011 and had a May 5, 2011 deadline to submit evidence. The GOP continued to push for maps drawn by an outside expert, something that was, by that point, an uphill battle. Immediately after the hearing, the panel had no decision. While the state's politicos waited to hear, blogs speculated wildly; according to one source, the Mississippi Republican Party quietly backed Secretary Hosemann's position and held that the NAACP and the Democratic Party had planned the lawsuit together. Hosemann continued to argue that implementing the new maps would take at least two months, time Mississippi's counties did not have. The court, while working on its ruling, continued to stress that it would minimize intrusion into state politics. The ruling was handed down on Monday, May 16, 2011. Mississippi actually got two choices - an ultimatum rather than a simple order. However, given that they were ordered to craft a workable map immediately or run under the current maps, many were unhappy with the ruling. The ruling stipulated that any new maps would have to earn pre-clearance from the Justice Department by June 1, 2011. It also specifically said the legislature could craft new maps in their 2012 session. The ruling also affected county-level elections. Attorney General Jim Hood was also ordered to act as a liaison and keep the panel apprised of the legislature's progress going forward. In ruling, the panel noted they had indeed changed their position from the aftermath of the first hearing, when they publicly shared that they were inclined to order elections be held under the newly drawn but not passed maps. In part, they said: We observe that our order seems to comport with everyone's 'second choice.' That — perhaps irrelevant — point aside, we are certain that it is the most respectful of all proposals to the principles of federalism, to the unchallenged laws of the State of Mississippi, to the holdings of the Supreme Court of the United States, and to the proper placement of responsibility for reapportionment — the Legislature of the State of Mississippi". Prominent state Republicans, Lieutenant Governor Phil Bryant, Secretary of State Delbert Hosemann, State Treasurer Tate Reeves, and Senator Billy Hewes among them, roundly applauded the decision. Hosemann touched on the win for states right implied in the decision while, on the other side, the NAACP only said that its lawyers were reviewing the decision. Right leaning advocacy groups, such as the Mississippi Tea Party, also lauded the ruling. The practical implication of the decision was, first, a special session sometime in late 2011 to have a fresh go at legislative districts and to address the state's four Congressional seats. Constitutionally, the legislature may handle redistricting anytime before the end of 2012. Aftermath The ruling allowed 2011 elections to go forward but did not settle what would happen in 2012 or after. The panel reserved the privilege of deciding if a special election would be held in 2012, though it was also possible someone would bring a lawsuit seeking to force just such an outcome. The cost of a special election sat against the unpalatable idea of holding onto districts drawn with 2000 data until the 2015 legislative elections. Rob McDugg, counsel to the House Appropriations Committee, did recommend to the panel that they, "should try to avoid the expense of a special election next year". At least two key players in redistricting, Senator Terry Burton and Representative Tommy Reynolds, publicly urged Governor Barbour to call a special session. However, that outcome appeared unlikely from the beginning; this sentiment was reaffirmed when the Governor quickly said, through a spokesman, that he would not be invoking that privilege. A local political scientist averred that, one way or another, the matter would resolved without going to the same stakes as happened in 1991; the reason, he said, was that the 1991 mess was over race, an issue replaced with partisan battles in 2011. "People are irrational about race. They are normally rational, if not self serving, about partisanship". The GOP notched up an unexpected victory at the end of May when, days ahead of the qualifying deadline for candidates, the architect of the state House map, Speaker Billy McCoy, announced he would not run for re-election. "There is a season for everything. I am confident there is a season for me after legislative service," McCoy wrote. "By God's grace, I am planning on spending more time in the beautiful foothills of the Appalachians with my family and friends". NAACP appeal On Tuesday, June 7, 2011, Mississippi's NAACP filed notice of its intention to appeal the decision before the U.S. Supreme Court. In October 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the lower court ruling that old districts could be used in 2011 elections. References

Missouri

See also: Redistricting in Missouri Democrats sue to block map On September 23, a group of Democrats filed suit to block Missouri's new congressional districts, calling the plan "overreaching" and "highly egregious." The group was supported by the National Democratic Redistricting Trust. The lawsuit argued that the districts are neither compact nor contiguous and that they unnecessarily divide and dilute voters in St. Louis and Jefferson County. State Party Chair Matt Teter said that he only learned of the suit the day it was filed. Teter added that he supported the idea of a court-drawn plan. See lawsuit petition here. Listen to an interview with the plaintiff's attorney here. AG ask court to dismiss lawsuit The Missouri Attorney General's office asked the court to dismiss the lawsuit. The AG's filing contended that the plaintiffs failed to show that lawmakers ignored the compactness criterion or lacked a rational basis for drawing districts as they did. KC Republicans file suit A group of Kansas City Republicans also challenged the congressional map arguing that the lines, especially those for District 5, were drawn for the sole purpose of protecting incumbents. Judges' maps faces questions as lawsuits face dismissal Less than a week after the judicial redistricting panel approved new legislative districts, there was speculation that the new lines may be challenged. Critics pointed to several county splits that they contended were not required by county population figures. The Missouri Constitution mandates that "no county lines shall be crossed except when necessary to add sufficient population to a multi-district county or city." Although the rationale for the panels actions was not known, it was possible that the splits were designed to compensate for new minority-districts--an action permitted under the Voting Rights Act. Meanwhile, a judge handling two challenges to Missouri's congressional districts was expected to dismiss both cases. If the cases were dismissed, an attorney for the plaintiffs promised an immediate appeal to the State Supreme Court. Attorneys for the state argued that despite charges of gerrymandering, plaintiffs had failed to show that new districts violated compactness requirements. Lawsuits dismissed, appeal filed On December 13, just days after a judge dismissed two lawsuits against Missouri's congressional map, plaintiffs in the Democratic lawsuit filed an appeal with the Missouri Supreme Court. The other challenge, filed by Kansas City Republicans, was also dismissed but was not appealed. Meanwhile, House Minority Leader Mike Talboy (D) called for revisions to the state's court-drawn House plan. Approved on November 30, the House plan took criticism for splitting several counties around the state. The Senate plan, which raised similar concerns, was revised by the judicial panel. The Missouri Constitution only allows county-splits when necessary to supplement districts in multi-district counties. The commission acknowledged that this provision weighed on its decision to revise the Senate map, but did not concede that the restriction applied to court-drawn maps. State Sen. Jason Crowell (R) called for a constitutional amendment that would subject future judicial panels to the state's Sunshine Law. Legislators press for judges' documents After sharply criticizing the legislative districts drawn by a panel of judges, Missouri lawmakers representing both parties requested records from the judicial process under the state's open records law. It was not clear whether the judicial panel is subject to the law, and at least one legislator has called for a constitutional amendment to guarantee that future panels are bound by the law. Judicial maps challenged, Sup. Court to hear lawsuits On Wednesday, January 4, attorney David Brown of Columbia filed suit against Missouri's State Senate redistricting plan. Despite revisions to the court-drawn plan, Brown argued that the map still inappropriately divided counties and, due to staggered Senate elections, would leave at least one district without representation until 2014. He also maintains that the court had no authority to revise its redistricting map after giving it final approval. Brown's petition can be found here. Senate maps overturned, other lawsuits continue On January 17, the Missouri Supreme Court overturned the state's Senate redistricting maps. The court found that the Senate plan unconstitutionally divided counties. The court also addressed two lawsuits concerning Missouri's new congressional districts, ordering a lower court to review the maps for compactness -- the lower court had initially rejected the lawsuits without considering the question. After these successes for redistricting opponents, a lawsuit was filed against the new state House plans with the Supreme Court. The court declined to hear the case and directed plaintiffs to file the case in state circuit court. (The lawsuit was re-filed in circuit court on January 27, 2012.) A new 10-member redistricting committee, composed of residents, would be appointed by the Governor to redraw the Senate maps. It was unclear if the revision process would be completed in time for the February 28 candidate filing deadline. Congressional maps upheld On February 3, a Missouri Circuit Court judge upheld the state's congressional redistricting plan. The judge had previously dismissed the lawsuit, but was ordered by the Missouri Supreme Court to consider the case on the merits. The plaintiffs were expected to appeal to the state State Supreme court. They argued that the maps violate the Missouri Constitution's compactness requirement. Rep. Russ Carnahan (D) expressed support for the lawsuit, presumably hoping to restore his former district eliminated under the map. Cases move forward, filing to be delayed On February 16, the Missouri Supreme Court heard arguments in the legal challenge of the state's congressional districts. The case was appealed after a lower court found the new map constitutional. The lower court had initially dismissed the case, but was ordered by the Supreme Court to consider the case on the merits. Meanwhile, a county circuit judge upheld Missouri's state House districts. This case too was expected to be appealed. In light of these legal challenges, the Missouri State Senate voted to delay the beginning of the filing period for state candidates from February 28 until March 27. The bill moved to the House. Supreme Court considers house plans On February 27, the Missouri Supreme Court heard arguments in a lawsuit challenging the new state House maps. The House maps were already upheld by a lower court, but so were the State Senate maps prior to their rejection by the state Supreme Court. The House maps were drawn by a panel of judges. New Senate districts were drawn by a freshly-appointed bi-partisan commission, but these districts face a two week public comment period and possible litigation. Along with the uncertainty facing the state House maps, Missouri candidate filing was in a state of confusion. Nevertheless, election officials reported that candidate filings were up from 2008. The filing deadline for candidates was March 27. Delay possible The Missouri Supreme Court missed a scheduled hand-down day as candidates waited for it to rule on challenges to the state's congressional and state House districts, posing a concern that it would miss the March 27 filing deadline. State House maps upheld On March 27--Missouri's candidate filing deadline--the Missouri Supreme Court upheld the state's House of Representatives maps. On May 25, the Missouri Supreme Court issued an opinion elaborating on its approval of the state House districts. The state House ruling can be found here. Lawsuit filed against revised Senate maps On March 2, a federal lawsuit was filed challenging Missouri's tentative Senate redistricting maps. The maps in question were a revision of earlier maps already struck down by state courts. The lawsuit argued that the revised maps discriminated against rural areas by placing too many voters in several rural districts, thus reducing the number of districts alloted to rural Missouri. The lawsuit also contended that changes to district numbering would disenfranchise voters by making them wait longer to vote in the state's staggered Senate elections. Only half of Missouri's senators are up for election at each biennial election--odd numbers in 2012, evens in 2014. As a result, some voters who had already waited four years to elect senators might be forced to wait another two if they're moved from an odd-numbered to an even-numbered district. Commission approves plan, lawsuit dropped On March 12, Missouri's bipartisan redistricting commission approved a new redistricting plan for the state Senate. The plan included a few adjustments from the preliminary map. The first maps had angered St. Louis area Republicans and drawn a lawsuit over the population balance between urban and rural districts. The final plan tweaked the St. Louis districts and somewhat evened population disparities across the state. The lawsuit was dropped in response to the modifications. Supreme Court upholds U.S. House plan On May 25, the Missouri Supreme Court upheld the state's new congressional districts. The map generated controversy by pairing William Lacy Clay (D) and Russ Carnahan (D). Plaintiffs argued that the maps violated the Missouri Constitution's compactness requirement. The congressional ruling can be found here. References

Nevada

See also: Redistricting in Nevada Legislature's failure to finish maps On June 22, 2011, Judge James Todd Russell met with both Democratic and Republican lawyers to discuss the redistricting lawsuits. Nevada First Judicial District Court Judge James Russell ruled on July 12, 2011 that a special panel would be charged with completing the redistricting process in Nevada. Russell said he would like to see the panel restricted to only 3 or 4 people. Reaction was mixed around the state, with some officials supporting the idea while others questioned the ability of this panel to successfully consider all interests. Russell gave lawyers until July 20 to propose panel members. The panel of "special masters" would then oversee the final map-drawing process. Judge Russell suggested that using county voter registrars could be a way to remove the political nature of the maps. Governor Brian Sandoval (R) commended that idea and suggested Scott Wasserman -- chief executive officer and special counsel to regents -- as a backup option if the registrars did not agree to the process. New panel On July 20, 2011, Secretary of State Ross Miller submitted a list of possible candidates for the panel to Judge James Todd Russell. The motion with the list of names also contained reference to the possibility that the judge can force the Governor to call a special session. In particular, a prior example was referenced from 1965, when the court ordered the governor to declare a special session to create a new redistricting plan. Meanwhile, lawyers from both parties requested that the court decide whether Nevada qualified for a majority-minority Congressional seat in due to the large Hispanic population in the state. Democrats contended that creating a majority-minority district would dilute Latino influence. Republicans contended that the requirements of the Voting Rights Act mandated that a majority-minority district be created because of the population percentages. September 21 court hearing A three-hour court hearing was held on September 21, 2011 to provide more guidance to the court-appointed panel that took on the roll of drawing congressional and state legislative districts. Judge James Russell said he wanted to approve a new redistricting plan by November 16, 2011. In the court hearing, Democratic lawyers argued against the need for majority-minority Hispanic districts. It was also announced that there would be two public hearings held on October 10 and October 11, at which time citizens could weigh in on possible maps. The next court hearing was on November 15 or 16, when Judge Russell would either adopt new maps or send them back to the panel for changes. State Supreme Court intervenes In October 2011, Nevada Secretary of State Ross Miller asked the State Supreme Court to force the lower court to have a greater say in the process. At the time District Court Judge James Todd Russell appointed a panel of three masters to draw the maps before an October 21 deadline. But Miller contended that Russell did not provide sufficient guidance in the process and did not rule on questions submitted by both Democrats and Republicans. The primary question at hand was how the Voting Rights Act should be interpreted with respect to the number of majority-minority Congressional districts. On October 5, 2011, the State Supreme Court announced it would hear arguments in the redistricting case on November 14, 2011. Special masters hearings In October 2011, the three-member special masters panel held hearings regarding the drawing of the districts. Democratic Party lawyers argued that Nevada has a history of electing Hispanics, and thus there is less of a requirement to draw strict majority-minority districts to ensure minorities have a chance at election. Meanwhile, GOP attorneys testified that majority-minority districts were needed because of white voter bias. The main issue of disagreement centered around whether one of the four Congressional districts and 12 of the 63 state legislative districts should be majority-minority. Meanwhile, on October 12, 2011, special master Tom Sheets asked the two parties to resolve their differences, suggesting that was a better option than the panel drawing the new maps. "You can make the special masters irrelevant if you choose to," Sheets said. No challenges There were no challenges filed against the new maps passed by the special masters panel. References

New Jersey

See also: Redistricting in New Jersey See also: Redistricting lawsuits relating to the 2010 Census Bayshore Tea Party suit On April 21, 2011, the Bayshore Tea Party filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the new state legislative districts. The suit was joined by 38 other plaintiffs from 21 counties. The predominant allegation was that southern districts were generally larger than legislative districts in the northern part of New Jersey. Also, the splitting of Newark and Jersey City from three districts to two was detailed in the suit as being unconstitutional. On August 31, 2011, that lawsuit was thrown out by Judge Linda Feinberg. In her 80-page ruling, Feinberg said the math used by the Tea Party group was flawed. References

New Mexico

See also: Redistricting in New Mexico State legislative lawsuits In late September 2011, the New Mexico legislature adjourned a special session after approving state legislative maps but without sending a Congressional map to the Governor. With Governor Susana Martinez (R) likely to veto the state maps, several lawsuits were filed at the end of September 2011 asking the courts to step in. Democrats, including state representative Brian Egolf, filed suit in Santa Fe. Republicans, including state representative Donald Bratton, filed a suit in Lovington. Another set of Republicans filed a suit in state district court in Albuquerque Initially, four judges in three different courts were assigned to lawsuits On September 29, 2011, Egolf requested that the State Supreme Court consolidate all redistricting cases in a district court in Santa Fe and then appoint one judge to preside over the cases. The lawsuits all requested the court to re-draw the 70 state house and 42 state senate districts, which is also what happened after the 2001 redistricting process failed to produce legislatively-approved maps. In October 2011 the legislature authorized the hiring of lawyers to defend the maps in court. GOP leaders were advocating for two sets of lawyers -- one for the Democrats, who passed the maps, and another for Republicans, who largely opposed them. The three lawyers hired were the same group of individuals who defended the legislature after lawsuits following the 2001 redistricting process. They were set to receive $260/hour for their work. On October 12, 2011, the New Mexico Supreme Court consolidated the redistricting lawsuits and named a retired judge to preside over the case. All lawsuits going forward were be consolidated into the case as well, which was handled by retired judge James Hall. Trial dates The retired judge handling the redistricting lawsuits in New Mexico -- James Hall -- set the timeline for court hearings about the four disputed maps (Congressional, State Senate, State House, and Public Regulation Commission). The dates were: December 5-8: Congressional map December 12-15 and December 19-21: State House map January 3-6 and January 9-10: State Senate map January 11-13: Public Regulation Commission map Special master On October 25, 2011, District Judge James Hall rejected a proposal by Governor Susana Martinez to use a special master to draw new redistricting maps in New Mexico. The GOP favored this process while Democrats were opposed. Redistricting trials began in December and concluded in January. At the end of November 2011, the court told lawyers for Governor of New Mexico Susana Martinez and Republicans that they could obtain emails, notes and other correspondences relating to the redistricting process that involved consultant Brian Sanderoff and legislators. Democratic legislative leaders had contended that such communication would be confidential and protected under state law. District Judge James Hall said that because Sanaderoff would be a witness, that the privilege of confidentiality was waived. Trials begin Congressional map A trial regarding the new congressional map for the three districts in New Mexico started and concluded the first week of December 2011. District Judge James Hall said he hoped to make a decision before December 21. Hall heard testimony that predominantly centered on whether a majority-minority Hispanic district should be created in the southern portion of the state. Map adopted On December 29, 2011, District Judge James Hall adopted a new map for New Mexico’s three congressional districts. The plan -- which had received bi-partisan support including from Governor Susana Martinez -- made the fewest possible changes to the existing boundaries. House map adopted The new map, approved on January 3, 2012, paired two incumbent Democrats and two incumbent Republicans. Bob Wooley and Dennis Kintigh were placed in the same district, while Al Park and Jimmie Hall were combined into an Albuquerque-based district. There are six majority-minority districts for Native Americans. While Governor Susana Martinez (R) applauded the new districts, Democratic state representative Antonio Maestas expressed his displeasure with the new map which he said rigged the seats to protect Republican incumbents. Additional challenge A group of Democrats and minority voters challenged the court-drawn map. The State Supreme Court held a hearing on February 7, 2012 to hear the suit. The State Supreme Court heard arguments in a lawsuit regarding the court-drawn map for the New Mexico House of Representatives. The hearing lasted about two hours, and judges said it will issue an order soon -- however, no actual deadline was announced. Democrats contend that the new map did not adequately protect minority voting interests. On February 10, the New Mexico Supreme Court rejected a court-drawn state House map. The new configurations were drawn by retired judge James Hall, who had been appointed by the Supreme Court to begin with. On February 13, Republicans filed a formal complaint in federal court stemming from the Supreme Court's ruling. The complaint called for a three-judge panel to overturn the state court's decision. See here for the full complaint filed by Republicans See here for the Supreme Court's ruling Three federal judges were named to oversee the lawsuit. The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals appointed appellate judges Harris Hartz Bruce Black, and William Johnson to hear the case. The filing deadline for state legislative candidates was scheduled for March 20 -- however, that date would have been jeopardized if no new map was completed in time. During the week of February 24, Judge Hall released new maps. Hall altered the map to comply with the high court's directives. One proposal paired current House speaker Ben Lujan Sr. with fellow Democrat Nick Salazar, though Lujan did not run for re-election. The other proposal paired Salazar with Thomas Garcia. The proposals can be seen here and here. On February 29, 2012, Democrats and Republicans came to an agreement on a court-ordered map. Analysis indicates that the map creates a better election environment for the GOP than the map originally passed by the legislature. Senate map A new bipartisan plan emerged for New Mexico State Senate districts -- and it was presented to the state court on January 11, 2012 for consideration. Lawyers for the Democratic-controlled state legislature opposed the maps, which were promoted by Governor Susana Martinez (R), state legislative Republicans, a group of Democrats, and Native Americans. The plan combined Republicans Rod Adair and William Burt into one district. Democratic incumbents Gerald Ortiz y Pino and Eric Griego were also in one district. However, Griego already declared as a candidate for a U.S. House seat. Senate map adopted The judge adopted the map on January 16, 2012. Two Democratic incumbents were paired together as well as two incumbent Republicans. Total cost On July 30, 2012, District Judge James Hall ruled that taxpayers would be responsible for paying attorneys' fees for those who represented Democratic, Republican, Native American and Hispanic voter interests in the redistricting trials - a sum that amounted to nearly $3 million. Gov. Martinez suggested the legislature pay the fees for Democratic-leaning groups, while the executive branch should pay for Navajos and Republican interests. Hall rejected this notion, stating, "the request itself only reaffirms the 'us-versus-them' mentality which pervades our present political environment." Following this decision, an analysis by the Associated Press found the total cost to taxpayers for the redistricting process came to nearly $8 million. This reignited the call by some for the creation of a nonpartisan commission to handle the once a decade process. References

New York

See also: Redistricting in New York Prison-based redistricting A number of Senate Republicans filed suit on April 4, 2011 against the Task Force on Demographic Research and Reapportionment and the state Department of Correctional Services for plans to count prisoners at their previous residence. Calling the law unconstitutional, the suit said the U.S. Census does not allow for prisoners to be counted in such a manner. Those filing the suit included Senators Stephen Saland, Joseph Griffo, and Thomas O'Mara, all of whom had prisons in their districts. The case brief stated: [The law] exacerbates vote dilution of certain communities and enhances the voting power of other communities by the fictitious movement of a phantom population of almost 58,000 non-voting prisoners into residents already occupied by others, and from upstate Republicans districts to downstate New York City Democratic districts which constitutes political gerrymandering. Read the full complaint. Assemblyman Hakeem Jeffries, who sponsored the original legislation, called the suit baseless, stating, “The constitutional concerns raised in the lawsuit are unfounded and are simply designed to mask a naked attempt to maintain political power.” State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman was also an original sponsor of the legislation when he was serving in the state Senate. Additionally, Common Cause/NY, Demos, and the Prison Policy Initiative all expressed objections to the lawsuit. Brenda Wright, Director of the Democracy Program at Demos, called for the suit to be dismissed, stating “The miscount of incarcerated individuals called for in the lawsuit violates the fundamental one-person, one vote principle of our democracy and contradicts the New York Constitution, which clearly states that a prison is not a residence. The plaintiffs here are wrong on the facts and wrong on the law." The New York State Senate identified the practice of prison-based gerrymandering for the 2011-2012 session. In short, it can be an issue because the numbers of incarcerated people can increase population counts, which in turn impacts boundaries. It can also be a matter of how much funding from the state and federal government districts received. Yet, as inmates do not have voting rights in New York, those individuals become sources of funding and power without actually being voters to be courted. Despite the U.S. Census Bureau using prison population when making its counts, the practice is illegal under New York State law. Article II, Section 4 of the New York Constitution states that gerrymandering in the prisons is unlawful because, "no person shall he deemed to have gained or lost a residence...while confined in any public prison.” . Also, Section 5-104 of the New York State election laws make it illegal for prison populations to be used for redistricting, using the same language as the Constitutional law. Assemblyman Kenneth Blankenbush (R), in arguing against the law, explained, "They're residing in the prisons. That's where they're using our water, our sewer, our electric. My opinion is that this is a political ploy for downstate to again beef up the numbers downstate." Democrats said that the renewed interest by the GOP is just another distraction by Republicans to avoid redistricting reform. Sen. Michael Nozzolio (R) decried the new law saying, "It was an unconstitutional power grab railroaded through state government last year at the backdoor of a budget bill." He said changing the law in such a manner requires changing the Constitution. In March 2011, the Federal Bureau of Prisons denied Maryland's request for prior residence information on prisoners, citing privacy protections. Despite the state's new law, this forces Maryland to count the prisoners in the district with the prison. To that end, New York may be denied approval as well. A coalition of activist group entered the fray on May 17, 2011, when they filed a motion asking the New York Supreme Court to intervene and protect the law ordering that inmates be counted at their last known addresses rather then in their prisons. The full press release from the NAACP's Legal Defense Fund is available here. Assembly Speaker Silver's office displayed confidence is responding to the motion, telling media, "We believe the statute is constitutional and will be upheld." Once filed, the suit gained momentum; on May 27, 2011, a trio of activist groups requested the court's permission to join the case on the defendants' side. In part, the petition submitted by the NAACP New York State Conference, Voices of Community Activists and Leaders, and Common Cause of New York, asserted that the named defendants could not "adequately" represent the interests before them. Impact of lawsuit discrepancy In July 2011, lawmakers said they would not be able to count prisoners in their home districts because of the ongoing lawsuit. According to Assemblyman John McEneny, co-chair of the redistricting task force, the lawsuit brought by the New York State Senate GOP is preventing legislators from enacting a new law that would place prisoners in their home districts rather than where the prison is located. In New York, this would have the general impact of increasing populations in New York City and decreasing populations in the rural upstate. However, according to Jeff Wice, a redistricting attorney who served as counsel to the national Democratic Party as well as a number of individual states, the law as passed by the legislature requires the new maps to count prisoners in their home districts or to remove the prisoners from the redistricting process completely. If legislators draw maps that continue to count prisoners in the district where they are incarcerated, then that would legally violate the current existing New York law. Doing so could open the process to further legal challenges and lawsuits. Individuals join lawsuit In August 2011, New York State Supreme Court Justice Eugene Devine said a group of 15 individuals could join a lawsuit filed by some legislators regarding the prison redistricting law. However, Devine said three advocacy groups -- NAACP New York State Conference; Voices of Community Activists and Leaders-New York; and Common Cause of New York -- could not actually be part of the lawsuit. In mid-August 2011, the individuals filed a motion for summary judgement, asking a judge to throw out the original lawsuit brought by the senators, saying that counting prisoners where they are incarcerated "unjustly inflated the political influence of districts with prisons." LATFOR to follow law While the Senate Republicans continued their lawsuit to overturn the law in August 2011, they agreed to count prisoners in their own home location. "The law will be complied with," said State senator Michael Nozzolio (R). Arguments presented in court On October 4, 2011, lawyers for the Republicans who filed suit over prison-based redistricting presented their arguments before New York Supreme Court Justice Eugene Devine, stating that the law violates the constitution because it creates two census counts. Lawyers for the defense argued the Census allows for state and local governments to define where prisoners are counted. Stephen Kerwin, a lawyer in the Attorney General's office, explained, "If the Census does not provide the information, than the Census does not control, and it does not make prison gerrymandering a requirement." Devine had 60 days to rule on the case. Case thrown out Devine threw out the case on December 2, 2011, upholding the law that prisoners must be counted at their last known home address. "Though inmates may be physically found in locations of their respective correctional facilities at the time the census is conducted, there is nothing in the record to indicate that such inmates have any actual permanency in these locations or have an intent to remain," he wrote. New York Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman called the decision "a victory for fundamental fairness and equal representation.” Most of the New York's prisons are upstate, which are more Republican districts, while most prisoners are from Democratic New York City-area districts. On January 10, 2012, LATFOR agreed to count prisoners as residents of their home districts. Republicans initially sought to appeal the ruling, but dropped it on February 24. Favors, et al. v. Cuomo, et al A group of civic leaders filed a lawsuit on November 17, 2011, asking that a three-judge panel appoint a special master to oversee the drawing of new congressional and legislative districts. The current process, they argued, was “an exercise in partisan self-dealing and incumbent protection” that could hurt elections in 2012. The suit names Governor Andrew Cuomo, Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, Senate and Assembly leaders and LATFOR as defendants. Richard Mancino, lead counsel for the plaintiffs, stated, "The system is out of time. The system is broken. It doesn’t seem likely that the system will correct itself, at least not when it’s being handled by very partisan people in Albany.” Motion for dismissal In early December 2011, a group of defendants, including Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver (D) and Senate Majority Leader Dean Skelos (R), filed a motion to dismiss the case, saying it was too early for the court to intervene. During the last week of December 2011, Senate Minority Leader John Sampson (D) and Sen. Martin Dilan (D), originally named as defendants, said they supported the suit and the appointment of a special master. Their attorneys wrote that an "impasse in the redistricting process has arisen, and that, given the shortage of time prior to 2012 election season, the time is ripe for prompt Court intervention." AALDEF files to join suit On December 28, 2011, the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund filed a complaint on behalf of four New York residents, seeking to add them to the suit. The complaint argued for equal representation for Asian-Americans in the new districts when they were drawn. According to AALDEF, the current lines split the largest Asian-American neighborhoods in the city into different districts, reducing their voting power. New York City's Asian-American population increased to more than 1 million, but Assemblywoman Grace Meng (D) was the only Asian representative in the legislature. 3-judge panel appointed Plaintiffs sent a letter to Judge Dora Irizarry on February 10, 2012, asking for a quick appointment of a three-judge panel to hear the case as time was running short. “The March 20 start to the candidate petitioning period is less than six weeks away, yet no congressional lines have even been proposed through New York’s legislative process. It is now exceedingly unlikely that a new congressional redistricting plan can be proposed and passed by the legislative redistricting task force, referred to and passed by the Legislature, signed by the Governor, sent to the U.S. Department of Justice and precleared, all sufficiently in advance of March 20 so that candidates and their supporters can prepare for the petitioning period,” the letter states. On February 13, 2012, Irizarry ordered such a panel appointed, giving it authority to appoint a special master to draw congressional districts if the legislative stalemate continues. The panel was appointed by the Chief Judge for the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals the next day. They will review the lawsuit and decide from there how to proceed. Special master appointed The panel dismissed calls from legislative leaders seeking to dismiss the case and appointed U.S. Magistrate Judge Roanne Mann as redistricting master. The panel ordered all parties to appear before them and Mann on February 27. At the hearing, Assembly Democrats and Senate Republicans acknowledged they did not have an agreement through LATFOR and Mann ordered them to submit plans for congressional districts two days later. Mann will issue her own maps by March 12. She only had authority over the drawing of congressional districts, but that was set to change. Legislative leaders had to report to the court by March 15 and if they did not make progress the court would address legislative district lines as well. Legislators submit maps On February 29, 2012, legislative leaders said they were unable to agree on a proposed map and instead three of the four legislative conferences submitted their own plans. Senate Democrats chose not to submit a plan because, as spokesman Mike Murphy explained, “Politicians should not be drawing the lines.” While all the proposals differed, the three parties each urged the court to preserve the seats of incumbents and agreed that the district held by Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D), who was retiring, should be one of the two eliminated. Since the proposals were all submitted separately, they were not legally binding and Mann was not required to adopt any of them. However, if the legislature and Gov. Cuomo were able to agree on a plan, the court may have had to defer to it. The court also announced it would hire Nathaniel Persily, a professor at Columbia Law School, as an adviser for Mann. Persily recently served as special master in Connecticut. He was paid $400 an hour for his work. Court releases draft map, final map Judge Mann held a public hearing on March 5, 2012 to collect information on the proposals she had received. Lawyers for both the Republican and the Democratic leaders urged Mann to defer to the legislative proposals and to avoid drawing incumbents into the same district. Mann asked why she should put those considerations before the guidelines set out in the state Constitution, which called for contiguous and compact districts while not mentioning incumbency at all. The following day, nearly a week before the deadline, Mann released her proposed map. Her plan closely resembled geographically compact lines as proposed by Common Cause and other good-government groups. In order to reduce the number of districts from 29 to 27, it eliminated Maurice Hinchey's district, as was proposed by both Democrats and Republicans, and got rid of a district in Queens. The legislature could still have avoided Mann's proposal from taking effect by adopting their own plan by March 15, 2012. However, on March 11, 2012 they announced their failure to reach an agreement. Late the next day, Mann issued her final recommendation, which made only minor changes to her initial recommendation. This plan now went to the panel of three federal judges who had until March 20, 2012 to decide whether or not to accept her recommendations. Republicans issued their formal objection to the plan on March 14, 2012, focusing their arguments on incumbency protection. Their letter said the court should avoid placing incumbents in the same district if at all possible, stating, “Professor Persily generally dismisses the Senate Majority Defendants’ (and other parties’) concerns about ‘respecting the cores of prior districts,’ insisting such claims are merely ‘pretextual arguments for protecting incumbents.’ As a threshold matter, incumbency protection is a traditional redistricting principle, as Professor Persily himself has previously recognized.” Map approved Acting with a sense of urgency, the federal three-judge panel approved new congressional districts on March 19, 2012 the day before candidates could begin collecting signatures to qualify for the ballot. The map was nearly identical to the proposal by U.S. Magistrate Judge Roanne Mann, who was appointed to act as special redistricting master. The panel noted that Mann was able to provide the court with a map in two weeks’ time - something the legislature was unable to do for over a year. According to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, six of the seven GOP-held U.S. House seats would be less safe for the incumbents, while at least four Democratic incumbents would face less friendly districts. 63rd seat Sen. Martin Dilan (D) joined others in filing suit in Manhattan state Supreme Court on January 31, 2012, arguing that adding a 63rd seat to the Senate is a violation of the state Constitution. According to the lawsuit, "This increase is unconstitutional because LATFOR failed to apply the Senate size formula prescribed in Section 4 consistently, rationally, or in good faith." It goes on to say, "Even assuming LATFOR has a modicum of discretion to determine which counting methodology is more faithful to the Constitution, Section 4 requires that its decision be exercised in a manner that is rational, evenhanded, and consistent. LATFOR has no discretion to manipulate the Constitution by changing its counting methodology after every Census to suit its ephemeral purposes, let alone to use two different counting methodologies within the same reapportionment." Senate Republicans said the plan met all legal requirements. In early March 2012, State Supreme Court Judge Richard F. Braun ruled that the court had no ability to review the proposal as it had not been voted on or signed into law and was only a recommendation. Following the passage of the new districts, the court heard oral arguments in the case on April 6, 2012. In a decision released April 13, 2012 state Supreme Court Justice Richard Braun rejected the Democrats' petition, saying they failed to establish that the process used by Republicans was unconstitutional. The judge did however say it was "disturbing" that Republicans used different methods for establishing boundaries in Queens, Staten Island, Nassau and Suffolk counties. Democrats received another blow on April 27, 2012, when the U.S. Department of Justice filed a letter in federal court saying they did not object to the plan. References

North Carolina

See also: Redistricting in North Carolina Democrats challenge redistricting maps On November 4, 2011, state Democrats filed suit against North Carolina's congressional and legislative redistricting plans in Wake County Superior Court. Arguing that the maps violated both the state and U.S. Constitutions, Democrats contended that the maps illegally packed black voters into a few districts and weaken their political clout. In addition, plaintiffs pointed to the contorted shape of the new districts and high number of split precincts as evidence of gerrymandering. In the 113-page filing, several of the most problematic districts were named: Senate Districts 19 and 21; House Districts 42, 43, and 45; and U.S. Congressional District 4. Republican and House Redistricting Committee Chair David Lewis, Sr. called the charges false but unsurprising. GOP leaders pointed to DOJ approval as proof of the maps' legality. Community groups file suit On November 4, four community groups joined together in opposition to North Carolina's legislative and congressional maps, filing suit over the new plans in Wake County Superior Court. Much like the Democratic Party lawsuit, the groups argued that the maps packed black voters and senselessly split precincts. Lawsuits consolidated, timeline adopted The two challenges to North Carolina's new district lines were consolidated into a single case to be heard by a special three-judge panel. After a dispute over the timeline with attorneys for the state, the court considered an expedited timeline under which the case would be decided by mid-February. Attorneys for the state argued that the panel should not make a hasty decision. The consolidated lawsuit argued that the new plans marginalized minority voters by packing them into meandering minority-minority districts. The state cited DOJ approval of the maps as proof of their legality. Faster timeline rejected by court On Monday, December 19, a panel hearing the challenges to North Carolina's redistricting maps declined to fast-track the case, siding with attorneys for the state. One of the judges for the case called the expedited timetable "extraordinary." The plaintiffs, state Democrats and minority groups, worried that delay would force the state to use the new maps in 2012. The state's attorneys argued that the plaintiff's legal arguments were a veiled attempt to achieve partisan aims. Whether or not the new maps were used, observers expected the state's primary to be delayed if the case went to trial. The next hearing in the case was scheduled for January 12. Section 5 upheld in local ballots case The US District Court for the District of Columbia rejected a challenge to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. The section requires US DOJ pre-approval of elections laws in states with a history of racial discrimination. The lawsuit was filed by North Carolina Rep. Stephen LaRoque (R) and several Kinston residents over a plan to adopt non-partisan ballots. Section 5 also requires DOJ pre-approval of redistricting legislation. LaRoque planned to appeal the decision. Judges keep primary date intact On January 20, the three-judge panel hearing the congressional redistricting challenge refused to delay the North Carolina primary. The plaintiffs--including state Democrats, the NAACP, and advocacy groups--argued that the new map constituted racial gerrymandering and contained too many split counties. In addition, they argued that the new precincts would create long lines and confuse voters. However, the judge found that delaying the primary would not help resolve these concerns, but noted that the decision shouldn't be interpreted as a rejection of the plaintiffs' arguments. The panel's decision can be found here. Panel says lawsuits can proceed On Monday, January 6, a three-judge Superior Court panel ruled that the lawsuits against the North Carolina redistricting maps could proceed. The state had asked for the two lawsuits to be entirely dismissed, but the judges ultimately retained more than half of the 37 claims made by plaintiffs. The consolidated cases were originally filed by state Democrats, the NAACP, and community groups. Meanwhile, allegations of gender bias in the NC redistricting effort surfaced after analysis showed that female Democrats were more likely to be targeted under the map than either Democratic males or Republicans of either gender. More broadly, the maps appear to have triggered a number of Democratic retirements--so far, one senator and 10 representatives have decided not to seek re-election to their present office (two are seeking higher office). Republican lawmakers denied any intentional gender bias in the maps, calling them both legal and fair. Oral arguments scheduled On April 20, 2012, a three-judge state panel heard arguments in a challenge of North Carolina's new legislative and congressional districts. The suit was filed by the state Democratic Party, the NAACP, and other advocacy groups. They contended that the maps reduced minority voting power. The court ruled the maps could be used in the 2012 elections. Suit in 2013 Arguments were made on February 25 in a redistricting trial challenging the congressional and legislative maps in North Carolina. Democratic voters and advocates who filed the suit are asking a federal three-judge panel to declare the maps unconstitutional. Attorneys argued that GOP legislators illegally packed African-American voters into districts while failing to keep counties whole. GOP attorneys defend the maps which were approved by the United States Department of Justice, as required by the Voting Rights Act. The GOP is asking the panel to throw-out the suit. References

Ohio

See also: Redistricting in Ohio Democrats sue to allow veto referendum Before passing the state's congressional redistricting plan, the Republican-led Ohio General Assembly added a $2.75 million appropriation to help local Boards of Elections implement the plan. Defenders of the move said the bill should count as an appropriations bill and should be exempted from a veto referendum per the Ohio Constitution. In response, Democrats filed suit on September 28, 2011 in the Ohio Supreme Court to affirm their right to challenge the map. An earlier ruling in 2009 upheld the right of citizens to challenge a racetrack slots provision in a state budget bill. The Ohio House GOP called the suit "baseless," arguing that the appropriation was pertinent to the bill. House Speaker William Batchelder (R) says that the court should act by October 9, 2011 in order to give counties time to prepare for the election. State rejects referendum petition On October 12, 2011 the Ohio Secretary of State rejected preliminary signatures for a referendum against Ohio's congressional redistricting plan. Although proponents had more than enough signatures to qualify for statewide circulation, the preliminary petition was rejected because of an appropriation within the redistricting bill. Democratic officials expected the decision and argued that the move would give their pending legal challenge further merit. The Secretary of State's press release can be found here. State Supreme Court OKs referendum On October 14, 2011, the Ohio Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision allowing the referendum against Ohio's congressional redistricting maps to proceed. Despite the GOP's 6-1 advantage on the court, defenders of the Republican-drawn congressional map could not sway the justices. The Ohio Constitution prohibits referendums against "appropriations for the current expenses of the state government." However, the court found that the redistricting legislation's $2.75 million appropriation, designated for local election officials to implement the new map, does not fund current expenses and, thus, does not exempt the bill from referendum. If the referendum gathers enough signatures, the new redistricting plan will be suspended until voters weigh in. This would create significant confusion as courts and lawmakers struggle to choose a new plan as the elections approach. Lawmakers could have passed another plan, this time as an emergency measure. This would have exempted the new plan from referendum but required a two-thirds supermajority. Ohio Republicans are reportedly reaching out to African-American Democrats to achieve this majority. Some members of the Ohio Legislative Black Caucus crossed over to support the maps originally, but still more would be needed to reach a supermajority. Meanwhile, the Ohio Democratic Party is using the threat of a referendum to pressure the GOP to make concessions in exchange for Democratic support of a redrawn map. Ohio lawmakers were expected to delay the presidential and congressional primaries in order to allow time for resolving congressional redistricting. The court's opinion in State ex rel Ohioans for Fair Districts v Husted can be found here. Lawsuit seeks to force court-drawn maps A lawsuit filed in October 2011 got a hearing later in November 2011. The lawsuit, filed by a Batavia, Ohio resident, argued that without a congressional redistricting map, 2012 elections would be unconstitutional. Moreover, the lawsuit argued that the local judge, Jerry R. McBride, should draft new plans and retain jurisdiction over future redistricting efforts. Opponents saw the case as an effort to "shop" for a sympathetic court and tilt any judicial redistricting efforts toward the GOP. Joseph Braun, attorney for the plaintiff, rejected this charge. Legislative leaders William Batchelder (R) and Tom Niehaus (R) have already filed documents conceding the central claims of the lawsuit. Kasich seeks dismissal from lawsuit On Monday, Ohio Governor John Kasich (R) asked to be dismissed from the lawsuit. Kasich argued that, as an executive, he played no role in drawing the new congressional maps. LaTourette, Democrats weigh in on lawsuit Congressman Steve LaTourette (R) asked an Ohio court to impose the embattled US House redistricting plan for 2012. LaTourette intervened in a suit filed by a Batavia resident which contended that the lack of a congressional redistricting plan was unconstitutional. Democrats asked that the case be dismissed, calling it premature. Dan Tokaji, a redistricting expert at the Moritz College of Law (OSU), argued that imposing the new maps would undermine the right to challenge the plan via veto referendum. Signatures for that referendum had to be filed by Christmas 2011. Democrats challenge legislative maps On Wednesday, January 4, 2012, Ohio Democrats filed suit against Ohio's state legislative redistricting maps. They argued that the map violated state constitutional requirements for compactness and the preservation of county and municipal boundaries. The new map split 51 counties and 55 cities -- a sign of political gerrymandering according to Democrats. They also charged that the committee violated open meetings laws by holding secret meetings in a hotel room. Republicans noted that renting the hotel room was approved by both Republican and Democratic leaders. They also contended that Democrats were attempting to disrupt 2012 elections by challenging the new maps. The petition in the case can be found here. Case delayed, maps stand for 2012 The Ohio Supreme Court decided to hear the Democratic lawsuits over the new legislative redistricting maps. However, due to the party's delay in filing the challenge, the court ruled that the new maps would stand for the 2012 election and revisions to the maps would apply starting in 2014. References

Oklahoma

See also: Redistricting in Oklahoma State Senate maps challenged Sen. Jim Wilson (D) filed a lawsuit with the Oklahoma Supreme Court, challenging Oklahoma's State Senate redistricting plan. Wilson sought to have the plan thrown out and another drafted, arguing that the maps violated the Oklahoma Constitution. The state constitution required that "consideration shall be given to population, compactness, area, political units, historical precedents, economic and political interests, contiguous territory, and other major factors, to the extent feasible." Wilson asked that the task be turned over, for the first time, to the state's bi-partisan backup redistricting commission. Supreme Court to hear redistricting case Oklahoma Supreme Court Referee Greg Albert met with lawyers and leaders from both sides regarding the new redistricting lines that were being drawn for the Oklahoma State Senate. The Democratic side argued that the new districts were gerrymandered by Republican representatives. The Democratic side also argued that the redistricting violated constitutional requirements regarding compactness, historical precedent, economic and political interests, and contiguous territories. The Senate committee responsible for the redistricting felt that the new divisions would be upheld in court. State may proceed with current maps State Election Board Secretary Paul Ziriax decided to redraw state precincts based on the redistricting plan approved in May 2011, despite a legal challenge to the senate plan. He argued that delaying the process further would create "confusion and chaos" for voters. Besides notifying voters of their new precincts, the state must also install new voting machines and train poll workers. Ziriax indicated that there were only enough funds to redraw precincts once. If the court mandated significant changes, there might not have been enough funds to once again redraw state precincts. Ziriax intended to move forward with the plan unless ordered not to do so by the court. Senate leaders also grew impatient with the legal process. Brian Bingman (R), Senate President pro tem, filed a brief in late July 2011, asking the court to allow 2012 senate elections to proceed under the new maps. He argued that a well-reasoned decision was not possible in time for the next election. Supreme Court upholds, case to District Court On September 1, 2011, the Oklahoma Supreme Court threw out a redistricting lawsuit filed by Sen. Jim Wilson (D). The court ruled 9-0 that the maps complied with the Oklahoma Constitution's population requirements. However, the court noted that claims of gerrymandering should be adjudicated at the state district court level. Wilson immediately announced that he would pursue the lawsuit in the District Court (Oklahoma is in the 10th District). He further noted that his attorneys never argued population levels, but focused on split communities and gerrymandering. Republicans argued that the decision is a sign that their maps were constitutional. Wilson hired a professor to draw new maps for the courts consideration. Redistricting suit renewed in District Court After having his initial suit thrown out of the Oklahoma Supreme Court the previous week, Sen Jim Wilson (D) renewed his challenge with a state district court on September 6, 2011. In its decision on the initial case, the Supreme Court argued that district courts had jurisdiction over questions of gerrymandering. In addition to challenging the senate redistricting plan, Wilson sought a preliminary injunction to halt implementation of the new maps. Election Board Secretary Paul Ziriax argued that a delay in remapping precincts could seriously disrupt elections and confuse voters. The Oklahoma State Senate attempted to join the case in defense of the plan, asking that the court dismiss the lawsuit. Even if the lawsuit failed, Wilson officially started a petition drive to overturn the plan at the ballot box. The proposed measure would have required lawmakers to redraw maps in 2013, using a bi-partisan process. A motion to dismiss the case was heard on October 11, 2011 and a trial date was set for October 17, 2011. Court records for the case can be found here. Wilson discusses the case here. District Court dismisses, appeal promised The District Court of Oklahoma County rejected the lawsuit filed by Senator Jim Wilson (D). The court found that the issue had already been settled by the Oklahoma Supreme Court despite the high court's recommendation that the issue be brought before a state district court. Wilson planned to file an immediate appeal, returning the issue to the Supreme Court. Wilson petition likely to fail After repeated attempts to invalidate Oklahoma's new legislative districts, term-limited Senator Jim Wilson (D) turned to the initiative process to invalidate the maps. Unfortunately for Wilson, his plan to invalidate the maps and institute a bipartisan process appeared unlikely to garner sufficient signatures. Wilson said a late start contributed to the stunted signature collection. Supreme Court rejects appeal On January 17, 2012, the Oklahoma Supreme Court concurred with a state district court in throwing out Senator Jim Wilson's redistricting challenge. Wilson also attempted a initiative campaign against the maps, but was unsuccessful. References

Oregon

See also: Redistricting in Oregon Lawsuit See also: Redistricting lawsuits relating to the 2010 Census While Democrats altered maps, Oregon Republicans filed a sort of place holding lawsuit, asking that, if legislative redistricting failed, a three judge panel be set up, with the members coming from across the state, to handle redistricting. Tyler Smith, an attorney for the state GOP, brought the case in Yamhill County. Smith filed the suit, which named Governor John Kitzhaber and Secretary of State Kate Brown, both Democrats, on behalf of former Yamhill Treasurer Tony Meeker. Meeker's core complaint, seeking to leave the matter of redistricting with a judicial panel, was his concern that the 1st Congressional District could be drawn to large, falling just within the allowable deviation while diluting residents' votes. Democrats called the action premature and one analysis held that the suit might be thrown out on those grounds. Normally, the Secretary of State takes over from the legislature if the latter cannot agree on maps. As the office holder was a Democrat, Republicans had some obvious incentive to move the fallback into the courts. One group, the Board of Commissioners of Tillamook County, agreed, outlining their concerns in a letter destined for Salem. At the core of the Board's concerns was an early conviction that the legislature would fail to enact redistricting and that it was in Tillamook's best interests to begin talking with Secretary of State Kate Brown sooner rather than later. No litigation over legislative maps The litigation deadline for lawsuits over legislative districts was Monday, August 1, 2011. No lawsuits were filed. Since the earlier GOP suit was contingent on the failure of the legislative process, it did not proceed. References

Pennsylvania

See also: Redistricting in Pennsylvania Speaker lawsuit Speaker of the House Sam Smith (R) filed a federal suit in Philadelphia on January 30, 2012 seeking to stop primaries from being held in the 2001 districts, what he said were unconstitutional boundaries due to population shifts. Additionally, six legislative seats remained vacant. As Speaker, Smith was constitutionally required to call elections for the seats, however, he said doing so would schedule them to take place in unconstitutional districts. On February 8, 2012, U.S. District Judge R. Barclay Surrick ruled that the election cycle was too far along to delay it, especially since there was "no reasonable alternative at this point." Latino Justice lawsuit New York-based group Latino Justice, working in concert with Latino Lines, filed a lawsuit in Pennsylvania on February 2, 2012, alleging that use of the 2001 lines was unconstitutional and hurt the ability of Latinos to elect representatives of their choice. Under the 2001 map there was only one majority-Latino seat, while the plan the court threw out added three additional seats. On February 8, 2012, U.S. District Judge R. Barclay Surrick ruled that the election cycle was too far along to delay it, saying the court understood the concerns of using the 2001 map but "the granting of a temporary restraining order at this juncture would make no sense. Clearly, it would not be in the public interest." Suits against June 8 plan On July 6, 2012, the Senate Democratic minority caucus challenged the redrawn maps in state Supreme Court. A few days later, Josh Shapiro and Leslie Richards, both members of the Montgomery County Board of Commissioners, filed suit against the plan, seeking it be redrawn to keep political jurisdictions whole "unless absolutely necessary." References

South Carolina

See also: Redistricting in South Carolina Congressional map lawsuit On November 11, 2011, six voters in Florence, Sumter, Georgetown, Berkeley, Darlington and Charleston counties filed suit against the new U.S. House map, calling the districts "voting apartheid." The suit requested that a three-judge panel dismiss the map and mandate lawmakers to create a new version of the seven Congressional districts. South Carolina Democratic Party Chairman Dick Harpootlian filed the suit on behalf of the six voters. Judge recuses himself In December 2011, the attorney representing Republican lawmakers in the lawsuit over the new South Carolina congressional map filed paperwork requesting that the federal judge be removed from the case. Billy Wilkins, in his complaint, alleged that judge Mark Gergel represented the plaintiffs in a similar lawsuit over redistricting last decade. Yesterday, Gergel recused himself from the case, in part because of his work for former Governor of South Carolina Jim Hodges (D). Gergel was replaced by Judge Patrick Duffy. March hearing A panel of federal judges upheld South Carolina's new congressional and state legislative districts on March 9, 2012, dismissed the lawsuit that had alleged the lines were drawn to weaken African-American voters in the state. On March 19, 2012, six voters appealed that ruling up to the U.S. Supreme Court. Upheld by Supreme Court On October 1, 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the lines were fair and nondiscriminatory. References

Tennessee
See also: Redistricting in Tennessee On March 16, 2012, Democrats filed a lawsuit against the Republican-drawn senate redistricting maps. The suit argued that the Tennessee State Senate map unnecessarily split too many counties. The implemented map split eight counties while a General Assembly Black Caucus map would have split five. References

Texas

See also: Redistricting in Texas More than 12 lawsuits targeting redistricting surfaced in Texas - two dealing with 2010 Census Hispanic figures—one addressing the counting of prisoners and one over the failure of the Texas Legislature to produce a congressional map in the regular session. Consolidation of three lawsuits San Antonio federal judge Orlando Garcia consolidated three of Texas's redistricting lawsuits on July 6, 2011. The three suits - one filed by a legislator, one filed by the Mexican American Legal Defense Fund, and one by the League of United Latin American Citizens - all center around claims that the redistricting plans passed by the Texas State Legislature did not give proportional representation to minorities. The consolidated case commenced on September 6, 2011. The plaintiffs hoped to replace the existing redistricting maps. Interim map hearing scheduled The San Antonio panel was scheduled to review the recently submitted interim map proposals on Monday October 31, 2011. The court planned to hear the proposals on Monday and then break until Thursday November 3rd, 2011 to account for the judgement of the DC case which was scheduled for Wednesday November 2nd, 2011. Interim map proposals submitted October 18, 2011 was the deadline for participants to submit interim map proposals in Texas' consolidated redistricting case being heard in a San Antonio federal court. Among those who submitted proposals were: State Representatives Marc Veasey and Harold Dutton, Jr., State Senator Wendy Davis, Congressmen Cuellar and Canseco, multiple Hispanic advocacy groups, the NAACP and African-American members of Congress, Travis County plaintiffs, and the State of Texas. One particular proposal put forth by the Mexican American Legislative Caucus could potentially have ended the already heated primary battle between US Representative Lloyd Doggett and State Representative Joaquin Castro by splitting the contested district into two - one centered around San Antonio and one around Austin. Objections to the proposals had to be submitted to the court by October 24, 2011. Court to draw interim maps The San Antonio federal court hearing Texas's consolidated redistricting case announced on September 30, 2011 its plans for preemptively drawing interim state house and congressional maps. A similar order was filed on October 3, 2011 putting in place the court's plans to draw interim maps for the state senate. The maps were to be used in place of the state's own maps which were awaiting Voting Rights Act preclearance in a DC court. Hearings on the court's interim maps began on October 31, 2011. Federal judge halts Texas from implementing maps US District Judge Orlando Garcia stopped Texas's redistricting maps from becoming legally adopted on September 29, 2011. Garcia was one of three judges on a federal panel in San Antonio hearing the consolidated case consisting of numerous legal challenges to the state's 2011 redistricting plans. The court order was needed because the maps were set to become law on October 1st, 2011 and with no legal declaration yet to come down on either side, county election officials were in limbo. Democrats and other supporters of the suit against the state immediately claimed victory upon the court's order. Texas officials stated that the order was expected and neutral, contending that it simply restated the already known fact that the maps couldn't be implemented until pre-cleared. A spokeswoman for the Texas Attorney General's office commented that “For the plaintiffs to somehow applaud this ruling as a win is like claiming victory at the end of the first quarter of a scoreless football game.” Closing arguments The federal three-judge panel case began hearing closing arguments from plaintiffs on September 15, 2011. Democratic Representative Marc Veasey's lawyer, Gerry Hebert, pulled no punches stating “Let's not pretend the state didn't know the racial implications of what they were doing. They knew it at every click of the mouse in drawing the map.” Attorneys for the Mexican American Legislative caucus and the Latino Redistricting Task Force also gave closing arguments. After the close of the trial, a spokeswoman for Attorney General Greg Abbott said in an email “The state is confident that the new legislative and congressional maps comply with both the federal Voting Rights Act and the U.S. Constitution.” A spokeswoman for Governor Rick Perry commented “The legislature determined and approved the map, and the governor signed it and believes it went through a fair process." While the closing arguments were heard on September 15th and 16th, 2011, participants and watchers had to wait to hear a decision. The reason for the delay was judges in the case were awaiting the outcome of another Texas federal redistricting case simultaneously occurring in DC. Texas submitted its plans to a DC federal panel in hopes of obtaining Voting Rights Act clearance. A Dallas lawyer close to the redistricting case said “The San Antonio court will hold back and wait until the D.C. court decides these are legally enforceable maps or not. If the D.C. court decides they are legal, the San Antonio court will then rule on the racial gerrymandering claims. If the D.C. court finds the new maps violate the Voting Rights Act, the issue will come back to San Antonio, and the judges here will draw new maps.” Undocumented immigrant population lawsuit The first lawsuit in Texas targeting the 2011 redistricting cycle was filed on February 11, 2011. The Texas Tribune reported that "Attorney Michael Hull of Austin, representing three North Texas voters, sued the state and a bunch of others, alleging that counting undocumented immigrants in political districts has an unfair and illegal effect on voters in districts with smaller numbers of non-citizens." The plaintiffs named in the case were: "KAAREN TEUBER; JIM K. BURG; RICKY L. GRUNDEN" The defendants named in the case were: "STATE OF TEXAS; RICK PERRY, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Texas; DAVID DEWHURST, in his official capacity as Lieutenant Governor and Presiding Officer of the Texas Senate; JOE STRAUS, in his official capacity as Speaker of the Texas House of Representatives; HOPE ANDRADE, in her official capacity as Secretary of State of the State of Texas; BOYDE RICHIE, in his official capacity as Chair of the Texas Democratic Party; STEVE MUNISTERI, in his official capacity as Chair of the Texas Republican Party; GARY LOCKE, in his official capacity as United States Secretary of Commerce; and ROBERT GROVES, in his official capacity as Director of the United States Bureau of the Census" The lawsuit can be viewed in it's entirety here. MALC Hispanic population lawsuit The second lawsuit in Texas targeting the 2011 redistricting cycle was filed on April 5, 2011. The Mexican American Legislative Caucus filed a lawsuit against the state of Texas requesting that redistricting measures be halted due to alleged misrepresentation of Hispanics. The group claimed that rural border communities coined colonias, inhabited largely by poor illegal immigrants, were undercounted because the Census Bureau did not mail forms out to members of the 800 to 1,200 colonias. A spokeswoman for the governor’s office said they had received the litigation and would not be commenting on the issue while the matter was still pending. The lawsuit sought to halt redistricting maps being drawn by the Texas Legislature. Judge Ramon Garcia, of Hidalgo County -- one of the affected areas -- was preparing action against the U.S. Census Bureau over similar concerns. He believed that "the census tally of about 750,000 county residents was short by as many as 250,000 people, an undercount that could mean $300 million to $400 million in lost federal funding for education, health care and infrastructure." A spokeswoman for the U.S. Census Bureau told the Houston Chronicle that any errors would have the chance to be resolved in 2012 through the Census Coverage Measurement Program and the Count Question Resolution Program. Prisoner counting lawsuit A third redistricting lawsuit had been filed in Texas. Representative Harold Dutton (D) of Houston filed a suit in federal court against the state of Texas on Monday May 9th, 2011 arguing that prisoners should be counted in their homes of residence for redistricting purposes. They are currently counted in the locations of their incarceration. The Houston Chronicle reports that "Dutton said some rural counties are awarded more population than they deserve using current prisoner population counting methods. Urban counties, meanwhile, should be able to report higher population counts, he said. Dutton said the way the state counts prisoners violates rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution." Representative Joe Barton lawsuit Representative Joe Barton filed Texas's fourth redistricting lawsuit with District Judge James Lagomarsino in Navarro County on May 22, 2011 at 12:01 am. Barton was suing because the Texas Legislature had failed to produce a new map for Texas's US Congressional Delegation. An email from Barton to constituents dated May 23, 2011 reads: Dear Texas Colleague, At 12:01 a.m. on May 22, 2011, moments after it became clear that the Texas Legislature could not create a new Congressional District map in time, I filed a lawsuit in Navarro County District Court to protect the constitutional rights of the citizens of Texas. I had hoped that the Texas Legislature would fulfill its duty. However, time expired and I believe filing a lawsuit was the only way to ensure that our constituents had a Congressional map that meets the needs and rights of every voter. I acted immediately after the legislative deadline passed to increase the likelihood that this lawsuit would become the vehicle for Attorney General of Texas to use in creating the Congressional map for the 2012 election cycle. I will keep you updated on the progress of the suit. As lead plaintiff, I will be pressing a map to the attorney general and the court. Your thoughts and ideas will be very helpful so please don’t hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Joe Barton, 6th District of Texas, Member of Congress. Travis County, TX lawsuit Travis County, TX had plans in place to sue the state of Texas over redistricting. County commissioners authorized County Attorney David Escamilla to file a suit on May 24th, 2011. "County officials are concerned about current plans to split Travis County into four U.S. congressional districts, Escamilla said. "We want to be in a position to counter those efforts."" League of United Latin American Citizens lawsuit Another redistricting lawsuit was filed in Texas on June 11, 2011, this one from the The League of United Latin American Citizens, "the oldest and largest Latino membership organization in the United States." The group filed the suit against the state of Texas over how redistricting lines were drawn and the resulting effects on minority representation. Texas Latino Redistricting Task Force A coalition of Hispanic advocacy groups, with the Texas Latino Redistricting Task Force as lead plantiff, filed a federal redistricting lawsuit against Governor Rick Perry on June 17th, 2011. The suit, filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, challenged redistricting plans for the Texas House of Representatives and the Texas US Congressional Delegation on grounds that minority voting representation was not proportionate to 2010 Census population data. The suit sought to strengthen Hispanic voting power within the state. Marc Veasey lawsuit Democratic State Representative Marc Veasey announced in July 2011 he intended to file a lawsuit to block the state's congressional redistricting plan. He claimed the plan disproportionately diluted minority voting power in the Lone Star State. Commenting on the redistricting plan Veasy stated "It is Republicans harming minority voters and breaking the law in order to hold and expand their power. It is shameful that Republican leaders in Texas would rather attack and destroy the voting rights of minority citizens than work hard to earn the respect of African-American and Hispanic voters." Maps violate VRA, thrown out On August 28, 2012, a federal three-judge panel in Washington denied pre-clearance to the legislature's set of maps, effectively tossing out new state senate, state house and Congressional districts. According to the ruling the new maps diluted minority voting strength and discriminated against Hispanics and blacks, both violations of the Voting Rights Act. While minority groups hailed the ruling as a victory, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott (R) said the panel expanded protections of the VRA and vowed he would "appeal this flawed decision to the U.S. Supreme Court." A different federal three-judge panel in San Antonio ruled on August 31 that the November 2012 elections in the state would proceed with the interim maps drawn by a court back in February. Abbott announced on October 19 that the state appealed the case to the U.S. Supreme Court, stating, The State of Texas is appealing this case because the lower court improperly extended the Voting Rights Act beyond the limits imposed by the Constitution and created new standards that have never been recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court. The maps enacted by the Texas Legislature satisfy all necessary legal requirements, so the judges in Washington, D.C. simply created new requirements in an attempt to justify their rejection of Texas' maps. In order to ensure the Texas Legislature's maps apply to the next election cycle, the State is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case and override the lower court's flawed decision during the Court's current term. References

Virginia

See also: Redistricting in Virginia Cuccinelli prepares for legal stalemate With Virginia needing pre-clearance from the U.S. Justice Department to enact its redistricting plan, this could have kept Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli busy. The Attorney General told the Virginia media that his office was dedicating most of its time in 2011 to handle any legal fallout that came from redistricting. Despite lawmakers and the Governor possibly reaching an agreement on a plan, the Commonwealth's top law enforcement official was prepared to handle any lawsuits. Cuccinelli said that: "there is no other state in the country that is covered by the Voting Rights Act that has elections in 2011. We're the only one, we're everyone else's test case." Cuccinelli had been on the record saying that he favors the Commonwealth's being exempted from the pre-clearance process. Federal lawsuit Lawsuits seek court intervention On November 16, 2011 a group of Virginia residents filed suit asking the U.S. District Court in Alexandria to draw the state’s new congressional districts. Although lawmakers pledged to pass maps as early as possible in the 2012 session, the plaintiffs argued that the Virginia Constitution required the maps to be completed by the end of the year. In addition, they noted that the 60-day Department of Justice approval process further exacerbated the delay. Since Republicans took control of the State Senate during the November elections, waiting until the next session would have given them a decided advantage in redistricting. The attorney for the plaintiffs worked for Democrats in the past but maintained that this case was independent of the state Democratic Party and Senate Democrats. A similar case had also been filed in state court. Lawsuit dismissed On February 10, 2012, the US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia dismissed a lawsuit that was asking the court to invalidate Virginia's congressional map and draw a new one. The lawsuit was based on the failure of the legislature to pass the plan by 2011--the year indicated for the task by the Virginia Constitution. The court did not elaborate on its decision. A similar case was still pending in state court. State lawsuit Cuccinelli seeks high court intervention A lawsuit was pending against the plan in state district court. The plan challenged the authority of the legislature to pass a redistricting plan after 2011 -- the state constitutional deadline. On January 25, 2012, the district court allowed the case to move forward. Given the details of the case, the decision effectively granted the plaintiff's central argument. However, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli (R) is asked the Virginia Supreme Court to settle the matter. The maps still faced the 60-day DOJ approval process before taking effect. The signature filing deadline for congressional candidates was March 29, 2012 for those seeking election in 2012. Supreme Court refuses to intervene On January 31, 2012, the Virginia Supreme Court refused to hear a case challenging the Virginia General Assembly's authority to pass a redistricting plan after 2011 -- the state constitutional deadline. On January 25, 2012, a district court had allowed the case to move forward. Given the details of the case, the decision effectively granted the plaintiff's central argument. However, the Supreme Court found that the district court's decision was not final enough to warrant review. The maps still had to face the 60-day pre-approval process before taking effect. VA had already submitted their plan to the Department of Justice and DC District Court -- seeking approval under both of the VRA's prescribed channels. To accommodate this process, VA Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli (R) asked the General Assembly to move the state's congressional primary from June to August. Circuit Court dismisses challenge On February 28, 2012 a Virginia circuit court judge dismissed the state challenge pending against the state's congressional districts. On January 25, 2012, the district court allowed the case to move forward. Following that decision, Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli (R) had asked the Virginia Supreme Court to intervene and settle the matter, but the High Court declined. Nevertheless, the state's defense was ultimately vindicated. Judge Richard D. Taylor concluded that although the Virginia Constitution instructed lawmakers to complete redistricting in 2011, it did not forbid the completion of maps in 2012. A similar federal challenge was dismissed on February 10, 2012. References

Washington

See also: Redistricting in Washington Yakima City Council lawsuit Filed by Tim Schoenrock, an immigration attorney hired by former Yakima Democratic Party chairman Tony Sandoval, an April 2011 case charged that the city was on long term violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Acts, the text banning voting procedures designed to lead to discriminatory outcomes. Sandoval's argument was that because Hispanics registered to vote and exercised that right in lower percentages than whites, the former group was being discriminated against by Yakima's City Council election system. Under the at-large election system, Sandoval alleged, whites were wrongly able to parlay their greater political engagement into more representation on the Council. The lawsuit claimed Yakima's 40% Hispanic population was thus underrepresented. Both Sandoval and Schoenrock were asking for the city to be divided into seven equal districts, a design that would allow concentrated populations a better chance of electing a member of their own community. Schoenrock told reporters, "The white population votes at a larger percentage than Latinos thereby overruling every time the Latino group disagrees with the white vote." The lawsuit was of concern due to its proximity to another suit and to what the decision in both cases could mean. The Obama Administration's Justice Department had been arguing that the city of Irving Texas should be allowed to count illegally present individuals as residents for purposes of allocating representation and funding. As Yakima's lawsuit hinged on the question of whether there is a systematic deprivation of political representation to a minority population, if the Justice Department prevailed in the Irving case in time to apply that precedent to Yakima, the implications could have been far-reaching. Citizens placed an initiative to achieve the same end on the August primary election ballot, but that item, if passed, would not take effect until 2012. The lawsuit sought to force an immediate change in how city council seats are divided. Vancouver citizen petition John Milem, a retired attorney from Vancouver, filed a petition with the state Supreme Court on February 8, 2012, asking them to redraw the lines in order to meet legal requirements of compactness, equal representation and competitiveness. Per the state Constitution, the court had until March 1 to intervene in redistricting. Milem argued the state redistricting commission did not draw the lines as outlined by state law and the state constitution. The plan, he said, limited competition and did not represent communities as best as it could. The new congressional map split 9 counties, two more than the previous map, while the legislative map split 17. According to Milem, it was only necessary to split three to four for congress and 11 for legislative. While the case remained pending, the Washington Supreme Court authorized the use of the new districts for the 2012 elections on March 14. Chief Justice Barbara Madsen, writing for the court, said, "In view of the approaching deadlines for the 2012 elections and the need for adequate time to perfect the case and consider briefs and arguments of the parties on the merits of Mr. Milem's petition, the court unanimously agreed" to allow the new districts to be used. Milem and state attorneys had until April 13 to submit an agreed finding of facts. If they did not agree, the case would go to Thurston County Superior Court. References

West Virginia

See also: Redistricting in West Virginia Putnam, Hurricane, Chamber threaten lawsuits Putnam County, the City of Hurricane, and the West Virginia Chamber of Commerce considered lawsuits over West Virginia redistricting. Putnam County seemed the most committed to litigation. Putnam County Commission President Steve Andes had said the county will either file or join a lawsuit against the plan. County officials were concerned that the new House of Delegates districts decreased their representation. The city of Hurricane also considered a lawsuit. Its mayor, Scott Edwards, argued "It's wrong. The way it's done is absolutely wrong." The city was drawn into a district with southern counties that Hurricane officials contend shared little with the city. The West Virginia Chamber of Commerce expressed broader concerns. The group had been a vocal advocate for single members districts and a vocal critic of the House redistricting process. Referring to the decision to reduce rather than eliminate multi-member districts, Chamber President Steve Roberts stated, "I think it might be fair to say that this was a session in which we took two steps back and maybe one step forward." He added that the chamber was investigating the redistricting plans to see if any voters had been inequitably treated. Whatever lawsuits were ultimately filed, election law experts had identified a few key issues likely to take center stage. One contentious question was whether multi-member districts disadvantaged certain voters in violation of the "one person, one vote" principle. In addition, counties could have argued that the legislature should not be permitted to divide counties large enough to have their own legislative districts. Disputes could also have risen over minority districts. Putnam votes to sue, Mason and Raleigh considered On August 23, Putnam County Commissioners voted 2-1 to challenge the state's legislative redistricting plan. Although the county could have accommodated three of its own house districts, the new plan divided Putnam between five districts with only one wholly contained within its boundaries. Opponents of the plan argued that Putnam should be guaranteed more than one local representative. However, supporters observed that three of the five delegates would likely be Putnam residents anyway. Mason County, which could have justified a single delegate district, remained divided between two districts. A Mason resident had not been elected to the house in recent memory. County officials had stated that they were considering joining the Putnam suit. Raleigh County also considered either joining the suit or filing its own. County Commission President John Aliff had reportedly asked the county attorney to investigate the suit being prepared by Putnam. Aliff stated, "We need to look to see if, in fact, we are going to contemplate a lawsuit... would we be better doing it as an individual county, or with another county? Those things would have to be looked at." Raleigh, like Putnam and Mason, was concerned about being divided among neighboring districts. Monroe in, Raleigh out On September 8, Monroe County announced that the county would challenge the House of Delegates redistricting plan. Under the plan, nearly all of Monroe was part of a two-member district including parts of Summers and Raleigh counties. Monroe had a smaller population in the district than either of the other two counties. The rest of Monroe county would have been paired with Greenbrier county. Given that the county was at a population disadvantage in both districts, Monroe officials argued that it would have difficulty electing its own representative. Raleigh county also considered a challenge, but announced later that it would not pursue the suit. FOIA request denied On September 2, the West Virginia State Legislature denied a Freedom of Information Act request for internal redistricting communications. The request was filed by the West Virginia Republican Party. Legislative officials argued that the state’s FOIA law specifically exempted communications of that kind. Both the request and denial letters can be found here. Republican FOIA request goes court On September 2, the West Virginia State Legislature denied the state GOP's Freedom of Information Act request for internal redistricting communications. Party leaders had called the 2011 redistricting process "a fiasco" and called the denial a "cover-up." Legislative officials argued that the state’s FOIA law specifically exempted communications of that kind. On Monday, September 19, the West Virginia Republican Party announced that it planned to challenge the denial in court. The GOP also asked the state to preserve all the relevant records relating to redistricting, advising the state of its "obligation" to preserve such records. The FOIA request and denial can be found here. The GOP lawsuit press release can be found here. Putnam issues notice of legal action, Mason in On September 13, Putnam County issued a notice of pending legal action against West Virginia's house redistricting plan. Putnam County Commission President Steve Andes argued, "If this isn't gerrymandering, then they need to take that word out of the dictionary." Putnam county was divided among five house districts with only one fully contained within the county. By itself, the county warranted three house districts. Mason county would also join the suit, arguing that it deserved its own house district. According to Andes, five to six other counties were considering joining the suit. Cooper and three others file notice Four notices of legal action were given concerning the House of Delegates redistricting plan. These four lawsuits were planned by attorney Thornton Cooper of Kanawha County as well as by county officials in Monroe, Putnam, and Mason counties. Stephen Skinner, an attorney from Jefferson County, was still considering a lawsuit over the congressional plans. Cooper first to file suit On October 13, attorney and former congressional candidate Thornton Cooper filed the first lawsuit against West Virginia’s House redistricting plan. Cooper contended that the map violated the West Virginia Constitution by failing to provide equal representation. He suggested that the court should overturn the map and order the legislature to draw a constitutional map by the end of the year. If the deadline was not met, argued Cooper, the court should impose his own map, which contained 100 single-member districts. Several lawsuits were still expected against the House plan. Monongalia residents join Cooper On October 27, former legislator Frank Deem and several Monongalia residents petitioned to join Thornton Cooper’s challenge of the House redistricting plan. However, unlike Cooper, Deem and the other intervenors sought to challenge the West Virginia State Senate plan. They argued that if multi-member House districts were unconstitutional, then any Senate districts formed around those districts were unconstitutional. In addition, they argued that the Senate districts did not keep with the state constitutional requirement that districts be “compact, formed of contiguous territory, bounded by county lines, and, as nearly as practicable, equal in population.” Their challenge centered on the division of Monongalia County into three Senate districts. County officials face uncertain districts County election officials in West Virginia were in a bind as the state’s redistricting plans faced legal challenges. With one lawsuit filed and several more expected, the state’s House of Delegates districts, and possibly its congressional districts, were open to court-mandated revisions. State officials did not plan to dictate how and when county election officials implemented the new plans, but either option (waiting for possible changes or acting immediately and changing as needed) could have created confusion among voters. In addition, making changes twice could have cost counties significant amounts of money. Putnam and Mason counties file suit On October 21, Putnam and and Mason Counties formally filed suit against the House of Delegates redistricting plan in the West Virginia Supreme Court. Both counties maintained that their populations justified additional dedicated representatives. House Speaker seeks to intervene in defense of maps House Speaker Rick Thompson (D) asked to intervened as a defendant in the two redistricting cases before the West Virginia Supreme Court. Thompson argued that court involvement in redistricting was a significant breach of the separation of powers. Thompson described the redistricting process as a "purely legislative task." Some speculated that Thompson decided to intervene because Secretary of State Natalie Tennant (named as a defendant in the lawsuits) was privately sympathetic to the challenges. Four more lawsuits filed In total, five lawsuits were pending against West Virginia's legislative maps. The State Supreme Court had asked state officials to present arguments in defense of the legislative redistricting plans on November 17. Jefferson County The Jefferson County Commission voted unanimously to challenge the state’s congressional redistricting map in federal court, specifically targeting the new 2nd District. Attorney Stephen Skinner, who prepared the lawsuit, filed his complaint on November 4. The complaint argued that the exclusion of Hampshire or Mineral counties diluted representation in the Eastern Panhandle by splitting it into two districts. The complaint also argued that District 2 does not meet the state constitution’s compactness requirement. Several commission members joined the lawsuit as private individuals. Monroe County Monroe County also officially filed its redistricting challenge on November 4, seeking to overturn the new House of Delegates redistricting plan. Under the plan, Monroe was divided into two districts. Given that the county was at a population disadvantage in both districts, Monroe officials argued that it would have difficulty electing its own representative. Monongalia and Wood Counties, Thornton Cooper Several Monongalia and Wood County residents (including Frank Deem) also officially filed suit on November 4, challenging West Virginia’s State Senate redistricting plan. In addition, Thornton Cooper, who was also challenging the State House maps, filed a separate petition against the Senate plan. The complaints argued that several new districts exceeded population targets and unnecessarily divided counties. Secretary of State Natalie Tennant responded to the petition and reinforced her commitment, despite personal reservations, to defend the maps. House Speaker Richard Thompson also intervened in defense of the maps. Tennant’s response can be found here. WV Supreme Court hears arguments On November 17, the West Virginia Supreme Court heard arguments from several groups challenging the state’s legislative redistricting plans. According to reports, the court seemed cautious about usurping the prerogative of legislators. Attorneys for the state argued that several US Supreme Court rulings supported the legislature’s approach. Justice Thomas E. McHugh acknowledged that lawmakers had considerable leeway in designing maps. However, the plaintiffs argued that the West Virginia Constitution mandates compacted districts and the preservation of county lines. This, they argued, must be the baseline from which legislators entertained other considerations. WV Supreme Court upholds redistricting maps On November 23, the West Virginia Supreme Court upheld the state's new legislative districts, denying the five lawsuits filed against the plans. While the court did not immediately issue an opinion explaining its decision, the court had shown hesitance in interfering with the legislative redistricting process. Plaintiff Thornton Cooper said the ruling was evidence that a constitutional amendment was necessary to take the process out of the hands of state lawmakers. State GOP Chair Mike Stuart flatly disagreed with the ruling, but noted that the decision only upheld the plans with respect to the State Constitution. Stuart predicted that a federal case would ultimately challenge the maps. In fact, the Putnam County Commission, one of the plaintiffs, was reportedly considering a federal challenge. Full opinion released On February 13, the West Virginia Supreme Court released it full opinion upholding the state's redistricting maps. The decision was handed down in late November. The majority opinion argued that the court may only assess whether the maps satisfied constitutional requirements, not whether those maps were the best way of satisfying said requirements. The full opinion can be found here. Federal case moved forward Despite the State Supreme Court's ruling in favor of the new legislative plans, the Jefferson County lawsuit against the state's congressional districts moved forward. On November 30, a three-judge panel, including one Circuit Court judge and two District Court judges, was assigned to the case. Thorton Cooper was also allowed to intervene as a plaintiff in the case. Jefferson County argued that the plan violated the "one person, one vote" principle. Further, the county argued that the exclusion of Hampshire or Mineral counties from District 2 diluted representation in the Eastern Panhandle by splitting it into two districts. The county also maintained that District 2 was not sufficiently compact. Briefs filed Both sides in the federal redistricting case filed briefs the week of December 18. The Jefferson County Commission was responsible for the suit and argued that the new 2nd District violated compactness requirements and contained too many residents. Attorneys for the state argued that the plan, known as the "Mason County flip" because it only moved Mason County, was able to preserve county lines and avoid incumbent matchups without significant changes. Notably, Senate Majority Leader John Unger (D) had voiced opposition to the congressional maps and agreed with the plaintiffs that they diluted the Eastern Panhandle. Panel set date for argument The federal panel hearing a challenge to the state's congressional districts had scheduled arguments in the case for December 27, 2011. Panel rules map unconstitutional On Tuesday, January 3, a three-judge panel ruled West Virginia's congressional redistricting plan unconstitutional due to its unequal distribution of population among the state’s three districts. The court gave the West Virginia Legislature until January 17 to come up with a new map -- otherwise, the panel would redraw the map. The state planed to appeal the ruling to the US Supreme Court and was seeking a stay on the decision. If granted, the stay could have given legislators more time to revise their maps even if the panel's ruling was not overturned on appeal. The decision in the case can be found here. Deadline removed After the state's new congressional map was struck down by a panel of federal judges, the judicial panel agreed to remove the January 17 deadline for the West Virginia Legislature to revise its maps. The panel's January 10 decision would also allow the state to change its candidate filing deadlines to accommodate the revision process. The state had asked for a stay of the decision while it pursued an appeal with the US Supreme Court, but its motion was denied. US Supreme Court upholds map On Friday, January 20, the US Supreme Court stayed a lower court's ruling requiring West Virginia lawmakers to redraw the state's congressional redistricting map. The order suggested that the court would be sympathetic to the state's defense in a full appeal. The order also allowed the state to move forward with the new maps for the 2012 elections. Prior to the ruling, several alternative plans had been considered in the state legislature. The state had until March 27 to file a brief with the Supreme Court or seek an extension on the stay. On March 27, the state filed a brief asking the court to hear the case. If the case did not go before the court, the lower court's ruling would have taken effect, and the maps would be redrawn. On September 25, 2012, the Supreme Court reversed the ruling of the lower federal court, upholding the new congressional districts as constitutional. In their eight-page ruling the Supreme Court stated somewhat unequal districts were permissible as the Legislature legitimately sought to avoid drawing incumbents into the same district while keeping counties intact. References

Wisconsin

See also: Redistricting in Wisconsin Citizen lawsuit On June 10, 2011, fifteen citizens, including former state Senate majority Leader Judy Robson, filed a lawsuit seeking new redistricting maps to be drawn by a panel of judges. Robson stated, “We are petitioning the court to redraw the legislative district lines. After the 2010 census, it was clear the legislative district maps were no longer equal. We are asking the court to do this since the Legislature has failed to act.” Additionally, the group of citizens had asked a federal judge in July 2011 to throw out the new maps approved by the legislature, alleging they violated both the state and U.S. constitutions, as well as the federal Voting Rights Act, by dividing cities and minority communities. The new maps, they argued, disenfranchised a large number of voters by depriving them of the right to vote for a state senator in November 2012. Senators in Wisconsin serve four-year staggered terms. Under the normal process, voters electing a senator in 2008 would vote again in 2012, but some 300,000 of those voters had been shifted to new districts, meaning they wouldn't vote until 2014. On July 27, 2011, the federal court in Milwaukee addressed the first suit, saying it would not take over the process and draw the maps, citing no special circumstances that would necessitate such a move. On September 26, 2011, Chief Judge for the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals Frank Easterbrook issued an order that created a federal three-judge panel to hear the case. It was made up of Joseph Stadtmueller from the Eastern District of Wisconsin, Diane Wood from the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals and Robert Dow from the Northern District of Illinois. On October 21, 2011, the three-judge panel ruled the suit could continue, noting the 300,000 voters in question. "That number vastly exceeds the 173,976 voters that were disenfranchised under the 1983 redistricting law, which persuaded the three-judge panel to find a constitutional violation. If the plaintiffs are correct that the redistricting law disenfranchises 300,000 voters, then their claim for relief appears much more than speculative at this stage of the proceedings," the decision stated. Congressional delegation tries to join suit In mid-November 2011, the state's five Republican U.S. House members filed paperwork to intervene in the case to protect their interest. The three Democratic members of Congress also filed to join the suit. The group that originally brought the lawsuit argued against allowing congressional members of either party from joining, saying it would open the floodgates to a myriad of parties wishing to protect their own interests. Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen (R), who represented the state in the suit, said he did not oppose allowing the Republican members of Congress to intervene and would most likely not oppose allowing Democrats as well. Republican depositions The three-judge panel ruled on December 8, 2011 that a consultant and a Senate aide who helped draft the maps had to give depositions and turn over documents to Democrats in the case. The panel issued a similar ruling on December 20, 2011 and on January 3, 2012 clarified the decision, saying that nearly all information must be released by Republicans, who had argued for secrecy under attorney-client privilege. The panel said that GOP legislators filed "frivolous" motions in an attempt to keep information private and ordered them to pay the attorney's fees for the plaintiffs in the motion. The ruling stated, "Quite frankly, the Legislature and the actions of its counsel give every appearance of flailing wildly in a desperate attempt to hide from both the court and the public the true nature of exactly what transpired in the redistricting process." It goes on to say the court "will not suffer the sort of disinformation, foot-dragging, and obfuscation now being engaged in by Wisconsin's elected officials and/or their attorneys." Documents ordered released In early February 2012, the GOP released documents that showed nearly all Republican legislators signed legal agreements to not discuss the maps while they were in progress. Also included was a memo of talking points that instructed Republican legislators that "Public comments on this map may be different than what you hear in this room. Ignore the public comments." The secrecy agreements all have the signature of attorney Eric McLeod of Michael Best & Friedrich, who was one of the attorneys who advised legislators during the map-making process. In a deposition, Adam Foltz, a legislative aide to Assembly Speaker Jeff Fitzgerald, said he probably helped write the talking points, but did not remember doing so. When asked about the stated suggestion to ignore public comments, Foltz said, "I honestly don't know exactly what it's referring to there." While Fitzgerald had yet to comment on the matter, his brother, Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald, said of the talking points, "I've never seen that and no other member of my caucus has seen that. It wasn't put together for me." The ripples from their release continued to grow - on February 9, 2012, thirteen Democratic legislators sent Wisconsin Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen a letter that requested an investigation by the Department of Justice. Despite the order, Republicans continued to seek to keep 84 documents, mostly emails, confidential. Voces de la Frontera said the earlier order was clear and the documents must be released. The group contended open meeting laws and the state Constitution were violated by Republicans when they drafted their maps in secrecy. On February 16, 2012, the three-judge panel agreed the documents could not be kept secret and forced Republicans to release them, saying it was “an all but shameful attempt” to keep redistricting out of the public eye. Most of the documents were between GOP-hired attorneys and legislative staffers working on the map. They indicated that a large amount of the public testimony given in favor of the maps was choreographed by Republicans. Discovery of withheld documents After Democrats took control of the state Senate in August, they demanded access to the Michael Best case file, releasing all of the documents they received to the public. However, after plaintiffs compared records with what had been released, they found emails that should have been turned over but never were. An investigation was undertaken, revealing 34 emails that were withheld. The emails discuss the process Republicans used to draw up the maps, including the details related to a July 2011 public hearing that was highly orchestrated to support Republicans. Attorneys for the legislature recruited people to testify, outlined witness testimony, and wrote questions for Republican committee members. There was also a concentrated effort to keep Latinos within the same Senate district so if changes were required they would be limited. Errors in maps In a memo issued January 13, 2012, the Wisconsin Government Accountability Board said they were unable to strictly follow the law setting legislative boundaries, and that some voters were not in the districts legislators intended them to be. An analysis of 19 counties by legislative technology workers found over 4,000 voters in the wrong municipality, with at least 1,000 that would probably have to be moved to a different Assembly district. The memo warned that the situation could have occurred in most or even all counties. The problem stemmed from a reversal of the redistricting process. Normally, local officials draw their maps first, with legislative lines drawn afterward. During this cycle, Republicans, who were in the middle of recall elections that threatened their majority in the Senate, changed the law to allow them to draw legislative lines first. This meant they did so without fully accurate information. On January 19, 2012, the state agreed to turn over documents regarding the errors and identify someone who could be deposed over the matter. Earlier in the week the state had submitted a court order that sought to allow them to withhold the documents. The group suing the state responded by asking the court to sanction the state for not providing the records. Trial underway The trial was scheduled to begin on February 21, 2012, but the three judge panel said redistricting was better left to lawmakers than the court. To that end they asked attorneys in the case to meet with legislators to ask them to consider altering the maps. Republicans said they would be willing to do so but that the law would not allow them. The court rejected this argument and asked them to reconsider a second time, but again they declined. With their refusal, the court began the trial on February 23, 2012. If the court did find problems with the map, it was unclear if they would redraw them or if they would order lawmakers to do so. Plaintiffs dropped several allegations from the suit, including charges that Assembly districts in black neighborhoods were inappropriately drawn and that the discriminatory effects of the maps were intentional. That left only two main issues for the court to decide - if the maps unconstitutionally diluted Latino voting power and if the 300,000 were moved needlessly, delaying their ability to vote in a Senate election. Presiding Judge J.P. Stadtmueller said a written decision would be issued in the following few weeks. Two assembly districts ordered redrawn The court issued their ruling on March 22, 2012, upholding congressional and state senate districts, but ordering two Milwaukee-area assembly districts to be redrawn. The panel stated the evidence “supports the need for a majority-minority district for Milwaukee’s Latino community, not just one or two influence districts.” They sent the map back to the legislature, ordering them to redraw districts 8 and 9 without affecting any of the other districts. In the meantime the Wisconsin Government Accountability Board was barred from implementing the new map. Although the judges upheld the great majority of districts drawn by Republicans, they harshly criticized the process, saying it was "needlessly secret, regrettably excluding input from the overwhelming majority of Wisconsin citizens." On March 27, 2012 the court took the task of fixing the two districts away from the legislature, saying lawmakers weren't able to make even the "precious few" changes necessary to bring the map into compliance. In doing so, the court ordered the defendant and the plaintiffs in the case to try to reach agreement by April 2. If unable to do so, they were instructed to submit their own recommendations to the court by April 3. On the day both sides submitted their proposals, a spokeswoman for the state Department of Justice said the state would most likely appeal the case to the U.S. Supreme Court. The court accepted the plan put forth by Democrats on April 11, 2012, saying it did a better job than the Republican plan. Appeal to Supreme Court Despite previously saying that the maps drawn by Republicans "have largely been vindicated" by the court, Wisconsin Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen (R) appealed the three-judge panel's decision regarding the two Assembly districts they ordered to be redrawn. The appeal went directly to the U.S. Supreme Court, who was required to take the case. Democrats called the move unnecessary and expensive. Assembly Minority Leader Peter Barca (D) stated, "Does their appetite for wasting taxpayer money on protecting their own political interests ever end? It must be the first time in history anyone has appealed their 'vindication' to the Supreme Court." In response to criticism, Van Hollen said, "While some view the adverse portion of the district court decision as being inconsequential, I disagree. Any time a federal court rejects a state redistricting statute, and decides to redraw or adjust a legislative district, it is a serious matter and appropriate for appellate review." Van Hollen dropped his appeal on June 18, 2012, agreeing to pay plaintiffs Voces de la Frontera over $185,000. Voces de la Frontera lawsuit The Latino community group Voces de la Frontera filed suit against the Wisconsin Government Accountability Board on October 31, 2011 stating that the new legislative redistricting plan deprived Milwaukee's south side Latino community of a voting majority in the 8th Assembly district. The lawsuit stated, “As a result of the redistricting plan, Latino citizens have less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the political process and to elect candidates of their choice to the Legislature of Wisconsin.” The case was consolidated with the case brought earlier by a group of citizens. Recall related suits On November 18, 2011, a group of citizens asked a federal court to make sure that any recall elections taking place in 2012 occur in the old districts where the legislators were elected from, rather than the newly drawn districts. Three days later, a group of Republicans asked the state Supreme Court to require any recall elections take place in the new districts. The new districts, drawn by the Republican majority, would help the GOP. Republicans filed a second lawsuit in Waukesha County on November 29, 2011 and requested that a panel of three circuit court judges hear the case. The new GOP suit was filed to make sure proper procedures were followed in the case. On December 2, Republicans asked to withdraw their first lawsuit, a move Democrats immediately tried to block, saying the court should keep the case and dismiss it at a later date. The request came after it was known that Justice David Prosser, sidelined with an illness, would not take part in the case. That same day, Republicans amended their complaint, requesting a single Waukesha County judge hear the case, rather than the three-judge panel. Three days later, Republicans announced they switched lawyers in the case, from the law firm of Michael, Best and Friedrich, to attorney Michael Dean. Michael, Best and Friedrich was the same firm used by Republicans during the redistricting process. References

Wyoming
See also: Redistricting in Wyoming Lawsuit filed A group of Wyoming citizens filed a lawsuit challenging the state's legislative redistricting plans. They argued that the plans did not give sparsely populated counties adequate representation. In addition, the residents claimed that the map split more county lines than necessary. The suit was filed with the State Supreme Court. References

See also

• State Legislative and Congressional Redistricting after the 2010 Census