[EL] Redistricting News from Kentucky

Thu Jan 19 18:27:37 PST 2012

There's a third method that Hawai'i has or used to have. I remember
litigation over it (not including me, unfortunately). It involves cutting
short the term of the Senators who were elected in xxx0, then holding a
lottery to decide which winners get a 4-year term and which a 2-year term,
but the lottery for 4-year terms is only held among those re-elected if
more than half the Senate was re-elected. I think I have the details right.
Someone from Hawai'i can correct me.

Ed

Edward Still
Edward Still Law Firm LLC
130 Wildwood Parkway, Suite 108, PMB 304
Birmingham AL 35209
205-320-2882 (voice & fax)
  www.votelaw.com/blog
  www.edwardstill.com
  www.linkedin.com/in/edwardstill <http://www.linkedin.com/in/edwardstill>

On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 3:21 PM, Justin Levitt <levittj at lls.edu> wrote:

>  Hi, Josh.  I'm working on a short piece about this issue, actually -- and
> it's one that shows up in any election bridging a redistricting, with
> particularly strong consequences in a staggered election bridging a
> redistricting, where half the seats are up and half aren't.  Which is to
> say that it shows up in most state Senate maps around the country (there
> are a few states that put every Senator up for election after
> redistricting, by shortening some terms to two years).
>
> Let's say that last cycle's version of district 1 represents Lexington,
> and district 2 represents Louisville.  The new version of district 1
> represents Louisville, with Lexington now represented by district 2.   And
> let's say that Senator Smith, from district 1, is up for election in 2012,
> and Senator Jones, from district 2, is up for election in 2014.
>
> There are essentially two ways to deal with representation when this
> happens, and I'm still knee-deep in research about which states are which
> (and would welcome other references).  Often, the only way that the law
> pinpoints the electorate to which representatives are responsible is when
> special elections are held to fill the remainder of unexpired terms, and
> the election authorities need to decide where to hold the special
> election.
>
> Method #1 is the one you describe.  The incumbent Senator follows the
> district.  So Smith (district 1) now represents Louisville until 2012, and
> Jones (district 2) now represents Lexington until 2014, even though
> Lexington voters didn't vote for Jones, and Louisville voters didn't vote
> for Smith (but get to vote on their new representative earlier).  And I'm
> under the impression that this is the norm ... though as I said above,
> still working out the details.  (For example, Indiana<http://www.indianaeconomicdigest.net/main.asp?SectionID=31&SubSectionID=120&ArticleID=60874>and
> Washington<http://www.atg.wa.gov/AGOOpinions/opinion.aspx?section=topic&id=8608>apparently work this way as well.)
>
> Method #2 is the alternative (and the way California<http://www.mercurynews.com/bay-area-news/ci_18313476>Senate seats work).  Rather than following the district, the incumbent
> Senator stays with their old district geography.  So Smith represents
> Lexington until 2012, and Jones represents Louisville until 2014.  The
> oddity here is that when Smith's term is up in 2012, the election for his
> seat will take place in new district 1, which now covers Louisville.  But
> Jones is still representing Louisville until 2014, and nobody's
> representing Lexington until then.  So voters in Louisville get two
> representatives from 2012-2014, and voters in Lexington get none in that
> same period (though usually, the Senate will divvy up "unrepresented"
> territory for purposes of constituent services).
>
> Now, it's relatively rare that the districts change wholesale, but it
> certainly happens.  More often, parts of the districts shift, but the
> districts stay more or less in the same place, so you don't have enormous
> pockets of territory that fall into the gap.  But in any redistricting,
> there will be some voters affected by the change.  And though there are
> concerns about representation under either system, it's hard to say that
> one system is universally better or worse.  Some have said, for example,
> that under the Kentucky system, even though the Lexington voters didn't
> vote for their new representative Jones, Jones has a natural incentive to
> do right by his new constituents, so that he's re-elected in that new
> district...
>
> Justin
>
>
> On 1/19/2012 11:20 AM, Josh Douglas wrote:
>
> There's been some interesting redistricting news out of Kentucky today.
> The state Senate adopted its new redistricting map, with some odd changes.
> Under an informal agreement with the state House, each House will agree to
> the other side's redistricting, so this will take effect in a matter of
> days.
>
> What the Senate did was shift various districts around the state.
> However, the legislation has each current senator follow their district --
> even to another part of the state.
>
> For example, Kathy Stein currently represents Lexington in the 13th
> District.  Her term is up at the end of the year, and she filed to run for
> re-election in the 13th District.  But now where she lives is going to
> become the 4th District.  The 13th District is being moved to a different
> part of the state.  But, for the rest of her term, she will still
> "represent" the (new) 13th District, even though it's in an entirely
> different region.  The senator from the 4th District in Western Kentucky
> will now represent Lexington, and he's not up for reelection until 2014.
> So if Stein wants to keep representing the 13th District she'll have to
> move.  Otherwise, she'll be out of office for two years and then can run in
> the new 4th District.  And a Senator who lives over an hour way from the
> (new) 4th District will now represent voters in Lexington until 2014.
>
> Obviously, there were partisan reasons for these moves.  But I haven't
> heard of other states that have the incumbents move with their numbered
> districts.  It would seem to present some kind of right-to-vote problem,
> because voters did not actually vote for the representative who now
> represents them.  There could also be an equal protection concern:  voters
> in Lexington were supposed to vote for their Senator in 2012, but now,
> because they are being represented by the prior 4th District Senator, they
> will not vote again until 2014.
>
> Is anyone aware of other states that have this kind of process?
>
> The local paper's coverage of this is here:
> http://www.kentucky.com/2012/01/19/2033524/plan-would-redistrict-lexingtons.html#storylink=omni_popular#wgt=pop
>
> Josh
>
> --
> Joshua A. Douglas
> Assistant Professor of Law
> University of Kentucky College of Law
> 620 S. Limestone
> Lexington, KY 40506
> (859) 257-4935
> joshuadouglas at uky.edu
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing listLaw-election at department-lists.uci.eduhttp://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
>
> --
> Justin Levitt
> Associate Professor of Law
> Loyola Law School | Los Angeles
> 919 Albany St.
> Los Angeles, CA  90015213-736-7417justin.levitt at lls.edussrn.com/author=698321
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20120119/c6ffacfd/attachment.html>