[EL] Another Texas redistricting decision/ELB News and Commentary 12/23/11

Fri Dec 23 07:43:31 PST 2011

The "frenzy" over the ProPublica report has also ignored the recent work by
Vladimir Kogan and Eric McGhee (see
http://polisci2.ucsd.edu/vkogan/research/redistricting.pdf), which found
that the new Commission plans are less biased and more responsive than
their predecessors. Ironically, given the alleged Democratic efforts to
game the system, the *old* plans had a clear pro-Democratic bias (at the
50% vote share point), while the *new* plans are almost perfectly symmetric
in their treatment of the two major parties. The new plans are also
substantially more responsive to changes in voter sentiment -- i.e., they
have many more competitive districts -- which I thought was one of the main
goals of groups like ProPublica. So the report may well be right that
Democrats *tried* to influence the Commission. But whether they actually *
succeeded* is much less clear.

On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 9:26 AM, Bruce Cain <be.cain48 at gmail.com> wrote:

> For the Record,
>
> Not that I mind being called "legendary" (even in a disparaging way), but
> the reporters and subsequent commentators have made a muddle of my Condor
> district story.  I told the story of a district that was made of residual
> scraps of other districts due to ripple effects as an example of how not
> every district has a real community of interest, and that we humorously
> called it the Condor seat because there was a Condor reservation in the
> middle.  The reporters apparently did not get the point or the humor.  But
> now it is alleged that it was a Congressional seat (nope, it was an
> Assembly district) and was constructed for an ally of the the Governor
> (nope, I drew the damn thing and it was news to people in Sacto when we
> presented it to them).
>
> I join the chorus of those who say that organizing the grassroots to lobby
> is legal, smart and appropriate.  I would not defend false groups, and the
> reform community might consider a disclosure requirement for paid lobbyists
> who testify or submit proposals in the future, but I note that the
> political party that opposes disclosure for Super PAC contributors claims
> foul when the same tactic is employed for lobbying.  The "tell" on
> political arguments is inconsistency.
>
> Bruce Cain, "legendary mapmaker"
> On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 12:59 AM, Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu> wrote:
>
>>   “Voting Rights: What’s A Reasonable Requirement?”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26970>
>> Posted on December 22, 2011 9:55 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26970>
>> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>
>> This story
>> <http://www.npr.org/2011/12/18/143916145/voting-rights-whats-a-reasonable-requirement>appeared
>> on NPR’s Weekend Edition Sunday.
>>  [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D26970&title=%E2%80%9CVoting%20Rights%3A%20What%E2%80%99s%20A%20Reasonable%20Requirement%3F%E2%80%9D&description=>
>>   Posted in election administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,
>> voting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=31>, Voting Rights Act<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
>> | Comments Off
>>   Only 33,000, Not 240,000, South Carolina Voters Lacking ID?<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26966>
>> Posted on December 22, 2011 9:50 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26966>
>> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>
>> AP reports<http://www.postandcourier.com/news/2011/dec/23/election-agency-data-called-flawed/>.
>> The 240,000 figure always struck me as very high.  It will be interesting
>> to see how DOJ treats this new analysis as it decides whether to preclear
>> South Carolina’s voter i.d. law.  The current deadline<http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/12/justice_department_facing_deadline_on_voter_id_decision.php>for that decision is Tuesday, but I wonder if these new data would allow
>> for pushing that decision back further.
>>  [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D26966&title=Only%2033%2C000%2C%20Not%20240%2C000%2C%20South%20Carolina%20Voters%20Lacking%20ID%3F&description=>
>>   Posted in Department of Justice <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=26>, election
>> administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, Voting Rights Act<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
>> | Comments Off
>>   “The Supreme Court’s Shrinking Election Law Docket, 2001–2010: A
>> Legacy of Bush v. Gore or Fear of the Roberts Court?”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26963>
>> Posted on December 22, 2011 9:48 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26963>
>> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>
>> The final version of my article is now available<http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/abs/10.1089/elj.2011.0111>in the
>> *Election Law Journal*.
>>  [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D26963&title=%E2%80%9CThe%20Supreme%20Court%E2%80%99s%20Shrinking%20Election%20Law%20Docket%2C%202001%E2%80%932010%3A%20A%20Legacy%20of%20Bush%20v.%20Gore%20or%20Fear%20of%20the%20Roberts%20Court%3F%E2%80%9D&description=>
>>   Posted in election administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,
>> Supreme Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29> | Comments Off
>>   “The Frenzy Over ProPublica’s Redistricting Report”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26959>
>> Posted on December 22, 2011 9:34 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26959>
>> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>
>> John Myers reports<http://blogs.kqed.org/capitalnotes/2011/12/21/the-frenzy-over-propublicas-redistricting-report/>.
>> Said John Burton <http://blog.sfgate.com/nov05election/> of the report:
>> “It’s complete bull…t,  an absolute f…ing fabrication.”
>>
>> More here<http://www.aroundthecapitol.com/redistricting-partners/newsletter/164.html>
>> .
>>  [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D26959&title=%E2%80%9CThe%20Frenzy%20Over%20ProPublica%E2%80%99s%20Redistricting%20Report%E2%80%9D&description=>
>>   Posted in citizen commissions <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=7>,
>> redistricting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6> | Comments Off
>>   More Breaking News: 3-Judge DC Court Explains Its Decision Denying
>> Texas Summary Judgment in Redistricting Case<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26955>
>> Posted on December 22, 2011 9:30 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26955>
>> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>
>> Though the three-judge-court denied summary judgment<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=25166>a few weeks ago and set the Texas redistricting case in DC for trial, it
>> did not issue an opinion at that time.  It said an opinion would come later
>> (to give time for the other three-judge court (in San Antonio) to craft a
>> redistricting plan to be used in the interim, the plan which is currently
>> before the Supreme Court).  Today the Court issued a 44-page opinion<http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/texas-dc-msj-deny.pdf>explaining its reasoning in denying summary judgment.
>>
>> The opinion is significant for two independent reasons.
>>
>> First, and most importantly, the opinion provides strong reasons to think
>> that Texas will not be able to obtain preclearance of its plans (though the
>> issues will depend upon how the judges resolve contested facts at trial),
>> and that fact could be relevant to the Supreme Court’s forthcoming hearing
>> and decision on the interim plan.  If the opinion convinces Justice Kennedy
>> (and the Court liberals) that Texas’s proposed plans likely should not be
>> precleared, then that is good reason these plans should not be deferred to
>> by the courts in crafting an interim plan.  Texas in its brief<http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Texas-merits-brief-12-21-11.pdf>filed yesterday conceded there should not be deference to a proposed (but
>> unprecleared) plan when it is likely to believe the plan should not be
>> precleared.  The opinion today will be thrown back in Texas’s face in the
>> second round of briefing before the Supreme Court.
>>
>> Second, the opinion is the first one (or one of the first ones) to answer
>> some open questions about the meaning of section 5 of the Voting Rights Act
>> since Congress amended it in 2006, and to answer how section 5 is supposed
>> to handle retrogression questions in the face of an increasing minority
>> population. The decision here is sure to influence how other courts
>> consider these questions, at least until the Supreme Court speaks on these
>> questions.
>>
>> Pretty busy in the election law world for the week before Christmas.
>>  [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D26955&title=More%20Breaking%20News%3A%203-Judge%20DC%20Court%20Explains%20Its%20Decision%20Denying%20Texas%20Summary%20Judgment%20in%20Redistricting%20Case&description=>
>>   Posted in Department of Justice <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=26>,
>> redistricting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>, Voting Rights Act<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
>> | Comments Off
>>   “Atlantic City Councilman Marty Small suing state officials over voter
>> fraud case” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26950>
>> Posted on December 22, 2011 4:45 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26950>
>> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>
>> News<http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/communities/atlantic-city_pleasantville_brigantine/atlantic-city-councilman-marty-small-suing-state-officials-over-voter/article_3dd7d1c8-2b42-11e1-bcfd-001871e3ce6c.html>from NJ: “Councilman Marty Small is suing six top officials with the state
>> Attorney General’s Office and State Police because they allegedly
>> ‘fabricated’ evidence, manipulated witnesses and otherwise corrupted their
>> investigation in trying to nail him on voter fraud charges in a case that
>> ended in his acquittal.”
>>  [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D26950&title=%E2%80%9CAtlantic%20City%20Councilman%20Marty%20Small%20suing%20state%20officials%20over%20voter%20fraud%20case%E2%80%9D&description=>
>>   Posted in Uncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1> | Comments
>> Off
>>  Problems with Virginia Ballot Access for Republican Presidential
>> Candidates <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26947>
>> Posted on December 22, 2011 4:42 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26947>
>> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>
>> Richard Winger notes<http://www.ballot-access.org/2011/12/22/ron-paul-and-mitt-romney-may-be-only-candidates-on-virginia-presidential-primary-ballot/>that Ron Paul and Mitt Romney may be the only candidates on the Republican
>> party ballot in Virginia.  Chris Ashby says<http://www.ashby-law.com/better-things-to-do/>it is time to change Virginia’s “unreasonable ballot access law.”
>>  [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D26947&title=Problems%20with%20Virginia%20Ballot%20Access%20for%20Republican%20Presidential%20Candidates&description=>
>>   Posted in ballot access <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=46> | Comments
>> Off
>> --
>> Rick Hasen
>> Professor of Law and Political Science
>> UC Irvine School of Law
>> 401 E. Peltason Dr., Suite 1000
>> Irvine, CA 92697-8000
>> 949.824.3072 - office
>> 949.824.0495 - fax
>> rhasen at law.uci.edu
>> http://law.uci.edu/faculty/page1_r_hasen.html
>> http://electionlawblog.org
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Law-election mailing list
>> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
>> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20111223/98586bd9/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: share_save_171_16.png
Type: image/png
Size: 1520 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20111223/98586bd9/attachment.png>