The Ballot Bulletin: May 2018

• Redistricting
  • State-by-state redistricting procedures
  • Gerrymandering
• Voting policy
  • Voter identification laws by state
  • Automatic voter registration
  • Early voting
  • Absentee voting
  • Online voter registration
• Ballot access
  • Ballot access for presidential candidates
  • Ballot access for major and minor party candidates
  • List of political parties in the United States

Stay on top of election policy news throughout the states

Email *

First Name

Please complete the Captcha above

In The Ballot Bulletin, Ballotpedia tracks developments in election policy at the federal, state, and local levels. To shed light on these developments, each issue will include an in-depth feature, such as an interview or event timeline. We will also discuss recent prominent events relating to electoral and primary systems, redistricting, and voting provisions.

This month's edition: We spoke with supporters and opponents of Ohio Issue 1, a proposed constitutional amendment providing for changes to the state's congressional redistricting process. We will also bring you up to speed on recent developments surrounding the implementation of ranked-choice voting in Maine and state legislative redistricting in North Carolina. Finally, we'll spotlight electoral systems, primary systems, and redistricting legislation in the states.

Ohio voters to decide whether to change congressional redistricting procedures

See also: Redistricting in Ohio

On May 8, 2018, voters in Ohio will go to the polls to determine the fate of a proposed constitutional amendment that, if approved, will establish new standards and procedures for congressional redistricting in the state.

• Following completion of the United States Census, state legislators could adopt a new congressional district map if three-fifths of the legislature's total membership vote to approve, including half of the minority party members. This map would apply for 10 years.
• If the legislature proved unable to adopt a new map, a commission would be formed to approve a map. That commission would include the governor, state auditor, secretary of state, and four legislators, two of whom would have to come from the legislature's minority party. A majority of the commission's members, including two members belonging to the minority party, would have to agree on a map. The map would apply for 10 years.
• If the commission proved unable to adopt a map, state legislators would be given a second chance to adopt a map. The map would have to be approved by three-fifths of the legislature's total membership, including one-third of the minority party members. The map would apply for 10 years.
• If the legislature failed a second time, the majority party of the legislature, without support from the minority party, could adopt a map that would apply for four years.
• Maps drawn by the legislature could be vetoed by the governor or a veto referendum campaign.

If approved, the amendment would also stipulate that Ohio's five most populous counties could be split twice, 18 could be split once, and the remaining 65 could not be split.

In order to illustrate the various positions on Issue 1, we asked proponents and opponents for their opinions. These are presented below.

Catherine Turcer, Executive Director for Common Cause Ohio: Common Cause Ohio supports the passage of Issue 1 because it is time that politicians stopped rigging district lines to win elections. Issue 1 is supported by the Ohio AFL-CIO, the Ohio Council of Churches, the Ohio Chamber of Commerce, the Ohio Farm Bureau and many others. In such a highly polarized time, it is a minor miracle that members of both political parties came together to address unfair mapmaking. In 2015, Ohio voters overwhelmingly approved state legislative redistricting reform; Issue 1 of May 2018 addresses congressional districts. Ohio is a swing state, but one-party mapmaking has left us with uncompetitive elections and unaccountable representation in Washington. In 2016, the margin of victory for Ohio’s 16 congressional races was 36.3 points (competitive races are within five points). Voters deserve to participate in fair and meaningful elections.

Issue 1 includes bipartisan mapmaking and prevents the worst aspects of gerrymandering with rules that keep 65 Ohio counties together. Greater transparency and public hearings take congressional mapmaking out of the backrooms and will discourage the kind of shenanigans that have plagued previous efforts to draw district lines. Issue 1 also gives mapmaking tools to the public so that Ohioans can better participate in the mapmaking process. If bipartisan mapmaking breaks down, the rules actually get tougher: 1) the plan cannot unduly (dis)favor a political party or its incumbents; 2) the plan may not unduly split governmental units; 3) the legislature must attempt to draw compact districts, and 4) the legislature must provide a written justification for the new congressional map. If adopted, Ohio will become a leader in creating meaningful, bipartisan redistricting reform.

Catherine Turcer is the Executive Director for Common Cause Ohio, whose mission is "to improve elections, hold elected officials accountable, and create greater transparency in government."

Mike Brickner, Senior Policy Director for the ACLU of Ohio: The ACLU of Ohio neither supports nor opposes Issue 1, a proposed amendment to the state constitution which creates a new process for congressional redistricting. Issue 1 does not go far enough to reform the redistricting process. While the ACLU of Ohio sees some benefits to Issue 1, it still allows for partisan gerrymandering, which we cannot endorse. Ohio needs a better process – with better rules – to ensure Ohio voters are appropriately represented in congressional elections. In the event that bipartisan compromise cannot be reached, the rules in Issue 1 allow for more power to be wielded by the majority party. The moment we codify methods which allow one party – the majority party – to make the rules, we lose any chance of fair and just representation.

The ACLU of Ohio applauds parts of the initiative which ensure public oversight and community input, but the process could too easily disintegrate back to a wholly partisan power grab, which is now in the voter’s best interest.

Mike Brickner is the Senior Policy Director for the ACLU of Ohio, whose mission is "to aid in maintaining and extending constitutional and other fundamental rights, liberties, privileges, and immunities, and to take all legitimate action in furtherance of that object without political partisanship."

Nino Vitale, Ohio State Representative (R): [Issue 1] creates a situation where districts will likely be drawn every 4 years. One of the reasons we do a census every 10 years is so that we can assess the population and decide how the representation will be drawn. Under this proposal, we have no new population data, so the drawing is done, not on facts, but on the will of a few politicians. I don’t trust them to do the right thing. It has worked using real data from the census for many years. Using data is a non-partisan way to determine how the lines should be drawn.

[The minority party support requirements] make it nearly impossible for a proposal to pass the General Assembly. If one party suspects that the plan favors one party over another, the bill will never pass and the parties will never agree, almost guaranteeing that the plan [will] go to the unelected commission. This is the entire plan. Get it in the hands of a select few that will do what the swamp politicians want. That’s not good representative government.

The Ohio Redistricting Commission, if it met tomorrow, would consist of: the Governor, Auditor, Secretary of State, one person appointed by the Speaker, one appointed by the House minority leader, one appointed by the Senate President, and one appointed by the Senate minority leader. They would make all the decisions. People fear tyranny of the majority, what about tyranny of the minority!

Nino Vitale, a Republican, represents Ohio's 85th House District. He was one of 10 members of the Ohio House of Representatives to vote against SJR 5, which put Issue 1 on the ballot. Vitale published additional thoughts on Issue 1 via his Facebook page.

Maine's top court allows ranked-choice voting to be implemented in June 12, 2018, primary election

See also: Electoral systems in Maine

• What's the story? On April 17, 2018, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court ruled unanimously that "ranked-choice voting is the current statutory law of Maine for the primary elections to be held on June 12, 2018," paving the way for its implementation in that election. The court noted that its ruling "focuses only on the June 2018 primary election; it does not address any other potential application of ranked-choice voting in Maine," allowing for the possibility of further substantive challenges to the law's validity in future elections.
• What brought us here?
  • The ruling comes as the result of a lawsuit filed by the Maine State Senate on April 4, 2018, in which attorneys for the Senate requested that the court "issue a preliminary injunction and, upon further consideration, a permanent injunction barring the Secretary of State from committing and expending public funds of the State of Maine for the development, implementation, and administration of Ranked-Choice Voting in the June 12, 2018 primary elections and all other elections unless and until such time as the legislative authority of Maine appropriates public funds for that purpose.”
  • On April 3, 2018, Kennebec County Superior Court Justice Michaela Murphy issued an opinion in Committee for Ranked-Choice Voting v. Dunlap ordering state officials to proceed with the implementation of ranked-choice voting in June. This ruling came after Secretary of State Matthew Dunlap (D) made a series of statements suggesting that Maine law might preclude election officials from implementing ranked-choice voting in the June primary election.
  • Maine voters adopted ranked-choice voting for federal and state elections via a 2016 ballot initiative. In May 2017, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court issued an advisory opinion finding that provisions of the ranked-choice voting law violated the state constitution. In October 2017, the state legislature approved LD 1646, which provides for the delayed implementation of the state's ranked-choice voting law pending voter approval of a constitutional amendment allowing for its use. LD 1646 also provides for the repeal of the ranked-choice voting law if no constitutional amendment is approved by December 1, 2021. Ranked-choice voting proponents initiated a veto referendum campaign to suspend and, ultimately, repeal LD 1646. Ranked-choice voting proponents filed the required 61,123 valid signatures to place the veto referendum on the June 2018 ballot, suspending LD 1646 pending resolution of the veto referendum and clearing the way for implementation of ranked-choice voting in the June 2018 primary election for federal and state offices.
• What are the reactions and what comes next?
  • Kyle Bailey, campaign manager for the Committee for Ranked Choice Voting, praised the state supreme court's April 17 decision: "The Maine Legislature has changed or repealed all four of the initiatives passed by Maine voters in 2016. Today's decision by the Maine Supreme Court confirms that the Maine people are sovereign and have the final say."
  • Sara Gideon (D), Speaker of the Maine House of Representatives, also favored the court's decision: "Mainers have said clearly that they want election reform and they want it now. The court has been clear in their ruling that ranked-choice voting is the law of the land. I am hopeful that the Secretary of State can now carry out this June's election without further interference."
  • Senate President Michael Thibodeau (R) said that he continued to harbor concerns over the legality and integrity of ranked-choice voting: "The court did not address the many remaining constitutional questions regarding this system of voting in Maine. From the beginning, our primary concern has been the integrity of Maine's voting system, and we remain concerned about the citizens of Maine having confidence in it."
  • Sen. Roger Katz (R) announced that he would draft legislation to provide for state police to transport ballots needed for retabulation from local polling places to the state capital: "The court has now ruled that we do have ranked-choice voting, at least for this June primary, and it's our job now to be responsible to make sure that this is done in an orderly, transparent and accountable way. We are just suggesting the state police are the way to do that."
  • On April 18, 2018, Dunlap addressed the ruling at a press conference at the Maine State House: "The key take-away from the decision is we will be utilizing ranked-choice voting for the June primary."
• What's going on in the rest of the country? The map below identifies states in which electoral systems and primary systems bills are being considered in 2018. A darker shade of red indicates a greater number of relevant bills. For full details about electoral systems legislation, see this article. For full details about primary systems legislation, see this article.

Electoral systems legislation as of April 30, 2018

Primary systems legislation as of April 30, 2018

State court denies request for a stay against state legislative district maps in Wake County, North Carolina

See also: Redistricting in North Carolina

• What's the story? On April 13, 2018, a panel of superior court judges denied a request for a stay against challenged state legislative district maps in Wake County, North Carolina. The panel, comprising Judges Paul C. Ridgeway, Joseph N. Crosswhite, and Alma L. Hinton, while noting that the plaintiffs had "demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits of their claims," indicated that issuing a stay at this juncture "would interrupt voting by citizens already underway."
• What brought us here?
  • The district maps in question (House Districts 36, 37, 40, and 41) were redrawn by the state legislature after the Supreme Court of the United States issued a ruling on June 5, 2017, affirming a district court order that found that 28 state legislative district maps had been subject to an illegal racial gerrymander. The legislature adopted remedial maps on August 30, 2017. On October 26, 2017, the district court appointed Nate Persily, a Stanford University law professor, as a special master "to assist the Court in further evaluating and, if necessary, redrawing" the revised maps. The court indicated that the redrawn maps for Senate Districts 21 and 28 and House Districts 21, 36, 37, 40, 41, 57, and 105 "either fail to remedy the identified constitutional violation or are otherwise legally unacceptable."
  • On January 19, 2018, the district court ordered that Persily's recommended maps be implemented. State Republicans petitioned the Supreme Court of the United States for a stay of the district court's order pending an appeal. On February 6, 2018, the Supreme Court issued a partial stay against the district court's order. The stay applied to five revised state House districts in Wake and Mecklenburg counties (four located in Wake County, one in Mecklenburg). The four remaining district maps adopted by the district court (in Hoke, Cumberland, Guilford, Sampson, and Wayne counties) were permitted to stand.
  • On February 7, 2018, opponents of the 2017 maps adopted by the state legislature petitioned a state court to intervene and order that the Persily maps be implemented in Wake and Mecklenburg counties. On February 12, 2018, a panel of state superior court judges declined this request.
  • On February 21, 2018, opponents filed another suit in state court challenging the legality of the remedial Wake County district map. This suit precipitated the April 13, 2018, order.
• What are the reactions and what comes next?
  • Allison Riggs, an attorney for the Southern Coalition for Social Justice, one of the plaintiffs in the suit, said, "We are gratified that the court recognized that the legislature likely acted unconstitutionally when it unnecessarily redrew several Wake County House Districts. We will aggressively litigate this case to final resolution to ensure there are fair districts in place by the time voters go to the ballot box in 2020."
  • Rep. David Lewis (R), chair of the House Redistricting Committee, said, "I appreciate that the court blocked Allison Riggs and her fellow Democratic activists' latest effort to disrupt North Carolina elections and throw out voters that have already been cast. Wake County voters will vote in clean, compact, and competitive races this fall. I am confident the General Assembly will ultimately prevail against these claims."
  • North Carolina will conduct its primary elections on May 8, 2018. Early voting began on April 19, 2018.
• What's going on in the rest of the country? The map below identifies states in which redistricting legislation has been introduced in 2018. A darker shade of red indicates a greater number of relevant bills. For full details about redistricting legislation, see this article.

Redistricting legislation as of April 30, 2018

See also

• Election policy on Ballotpedia
• Electoral systems legislation at the state and city levels in the United States, 2018
• Primary systems legislation at the state and city levels in the United States, 2018
• Redistricting legislation at the state and city levels in the United States, 2018
• Federal redistricting legislation in the United States, 2017-2019 (115th Congress)