Your monthly support provides voters the knowledge they need to make confident decisions at the polls. Donate today.

Daily Brew: April 29, 2019

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

April 29, 2019

Get your daily cup of news




%%subject%%

Today's Brew previews the likelihood of changes in trifecta control in 2019 + a federal court ruling on partisan gerrymandering in Michigan  
The Daily Brew

Welcome to the Monday, April 29 Brew. Here’s what’s in store for you as you start your day:

  1. Trifecta control in five states at stake in the 2019 elections
  2. Federal court strikes down Michigan state legislative and congressional district maps as partisan gerrymanders
  3. Divergent sanctuary jurisdiction policies decided in Arkansas, California

Trifecta control in five states at stake in the 2019 elections

Five states are holding elections for governor or entire state legislative chambers in 2019. In each of the five states, the result could shift the state’s trifecta status. A trifecta, which describes when one party holds the governorship, a majority in the state senate, and a majority in the state house, helps that party advance its agenda while requiring less support from members of the minority party. Nationally, Republicans hold 22 trifectas to Democrats' 14.

The five states and their elections:

  • Kentucky—governor
  • Louisiana—governor, state House, state Senate
  • Mississippi—governor, state House, state Senate
  • New Jersey—state House
  • Virginia—state House, state Senate

Three states have trifectas while two are under divided government. Kentucky and Mississippi are Republican trifectas while New Jersey is a Democratic trifecta. Louisiana and Virginia have a divided government. In both states, Republicans control the legislature and Democrats the governorship.

Based on the number of seats which would need to be flipped to change control of each legislative chamber and on gubernatorial race ratings from political forecasters, Ballotpedia has rated the vulnerability of existing trifectas and the chances of new trifectas forming. For the full details, see our analysis at the link below.

In Louisiana and Mississippi, either party can win trifecta control by winning the governor’s office and control of both legislative chambers. Any other outcome will result in divided government in those states.

In Kentucky, both chambers of the state legislature are controlled by Republicans and only the governorship is up for election this year. If Republicans hold control of that office, they would preserve their trifecta. If Democrats win, that would create divided government in that state.

Republicans cannot win trifecta control in either New Jersey or Virginia since the governor is not up for election and a Democrat holds that office in both states. If Democrats maintain control of the state Assembly in New Jersey, they will maintain their trifecta. If Republicans win control of that chamber, the state will have divided government. Republicans can maintain divided government in Virginia by retaining majorities in either state legislative chamber. For Democrats to win a trifecta there, they must win control of both chambers of the state legislature.

In the 2018 elections, four existing Republican trifectas were broken—Kansas, Michigan, New Hampshire, and Wisconsin. Six new Democratic trifectas were created—Colorado, Illinois, Maine, Nevada, New Mexico, and New York. No new Republican trifectas were created and no Democratic trifectas were broken. The number of states with divided government declined by two.

See our full analysis
blank

Federal court strikes down Michigan state legislative and congressional district maps as partisan gerrymanders

If a court ruling in Michigan is upheld, some Michigan voters could see elections in 2020 under new districts.

Last week, a three-judge panel of the United District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan ruled unanimously that 9 congressional and 25 state legislative districts in Michigan had been subject to unconstitutional partisan gerrymandering, violating Democrats' First Amendment associational rights. The court also found that 27 of the 34 challenged districts violated the Democrats' First and Fourteenth Amendment rights by diluting the impact of their votes.

The court enjoined the use of any challenged districts in future elections. It also ordered that special elections be conducted in 2020 for the challenged state Senate districts and any adjoining districts whose boundaries might be affected by remedial maps. The court directed the state legislature to adopt remedial maps for the challenged districts on or before August 1, 2019.

In June 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear Gill v. Whitford, in which twelve registered Democratic voters in Wisconsin challenged that state's legislative redistricting plan as an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander. In June 2018, the court ruled that the plaintiffs had failed to demonstrate standing but did not address the broader question of whether partisan gerrymandering claims can be brought to trial under the U.S. Constitution and remanded the case to the lower court for further proceedings.

The suit in this case was filed in December 2017 by the League of Women Voters of Michigan and a group of state Democrats. In February 2019, the court rejected a proposed settlement in which maps for some state House districts would be redrawn in advance of the 2020 election. State Republicans petitioned the Supreme Court of the United States to delay lower court proceedings pending the high court's rulings in two other cases being heard this term concerning what constitutes an illegal partisan gerrymander. Supreme Court Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor denied this request, which cleared the way for the trial to commence.

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments last month in those two partisan gerrymandering cases, Rucho v. Common Cause and Lamone v. Benisek. Both represented appeals of district court rulings that found that congressional maps in North Carolina and Maryland, respectively, constituted an illegal partisan gerrymander. The high court is expected to rule on both cases prior to the conclusion of the current term in June 2019.

Judge Eric Clay, appointed to the bench by President Bill Clinton (D), wrote the court's opinion and order. Judges Denise Hood and Gordon Quist, appointed to the bench by Presidents Clinton and George H. W. Bush (R), respectively, joined Clay's opinion.

Signup with one click for our Ballot Bulletin newsletter, which tracks election-related legislation and policy in each monthly edition, to get more in-depth coverage of redistricting issues like this one.

Divergent sanctuary jurisdiction policies decided in Arkansas, California

On the same day earlier this month, two separate events occurred regarding the legality of how state and local jurisdictions should comply with federal immigration authorities.

In Arkansas, Gov. Asa Hutchinson (R) signed a bill to prohibit sanctuary policies in Arkansas. The measure prohibits municipalities from adopting such policies and establishes that municipalities determined to be in violation of the law would be ineligible to receive state funds or grants until the policy was repealed. The legislation is scheduled to take effect on January 1, 2020.

The law defines a sanctuary policy as "an order, ordinance, or law enforcement policy, whether formally enacted or informally adopted by custom or practice" that limits municipal officials from cooperating with federal agencies to verify immigration status or from complying with federal detainer requests.

In California, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit unanimously ruled that Senate Bill (SB) 54, California’s sanctuary state law, did not conflict with federal law. The decision upheld a U.S. District Court ruling in response to a 2018 lawsuit brought by the Trump administration which challenged three California statutes—SB 54, AB 450, and AB 103.

As passed, SB 54 established the following provisions:

  • Exempting state prisons from provisions prohibiting state law enforcement agencies from cooperating with federal immigration agents.
  • Permitting law enforcement officials to notify ICE of the release of certain individuals and share database information with immigration agents.
  • Allowing federal immigration agents to interview jailed individuals suspected of violating federal immigration law.

AB 103 established restrictions on state and local agencies, preventing them from contracting with the federal government to detain immigrants. AB 450 included a provision requiring employers to notify employees about immigration inspections.

Writing for the panel, Judge Milan Smith wrote that SB 54 "makes the jobs of federal immigration authorities more difficult" but "does not directly conflict with any obligation" that federal law imposes on state or local governments. Smith also ruled against a provision in AB 103. "Only those provisions that impose an additional economic burden exclusively on the federal government are invalid," he said.

Smith was appointed to the court by President George W. Bush (R). The other two judges on the panel, Paul Watford and Andrew Hurwitz, were appointed by President Barack Obama (D).

The U.S. Department of Justice did not respond to the ruling. The government could seek en banc review from an 11-member panel of 9th Circuit judges or petition the Supreme Court of the United States for review.

Arkansas is one of 22 Republican trifectas while California is one of 14 Democratic trifectas.


See also

Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Daily_Brew:_April_29,_2019&oldid=8439623"