[EL] Rohrabacher-Lowenthal bill

[Rob Richie]

We've allowed Congress to mandate states to use single-winner congressional
districts, overriding states that at the time of the most recent law (1967)
and past forms of it (such as the first one in 1842) wanted to keep
statewide elections. See my discussion of this history in a piece I
coauthored with Drew Spencer for the University of Richmond law review.
http://lawreview.richmond.edu/the-right-choice-for-elections-how-choice-voting-will-end-gerrymandering-and-expand-minority-voting-rights-from-city-councils-to-congress/

Ironically, it is Congress through this law that has mandated that states
must gerrrymander in one form or another. As Reihan Salam eloquently argued
in Slate last year, the best approach would be for Congress to undo that
1967 mandate and, if anything, establish a new mandate for fair
representation voting systems:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/09/abolish_the_single_member_district_that_s_the_best_way_to_ensure_truly_fair.html

You can see directly what such a system could look like and its rather
dramatic impact on leveling the playing field and opening every part of the
country to two-party representation and meaningful competition here:
http://www.FairVoting.us

- Rob
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Rob Richie
Executive Director, FairVote
6930 Carroll Avenue, Suite 610
Takoma Park, MD 20912
rr at fairvote.org  (301) 270-4616  http://www.fairvote.org

On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 12:13 PM, Marty Lederman <lederman.marty at gmail.com>
wrote:

> If the Court declares the AZ map invalid (which is by no means a sure
> bet), and if Congress were to enact this law, it would almost certainly be
> challenged on constitutional grounds.  In his briefs and argument to the
> Court, Paul Clement argued that "[w]hatever power Congress has under the
> second subclause of the Elections Clause, it does not include the authority
> to
> override the first subclause. . . .  [A federal] law authorizing States to
> deprive state legislatures of their constitutionally-conferred role in
> prescribing
> regulations for congressional elections and redelegate that authority
> elsewhere would be [a] palpable violation of the Constitution."
>
> I tend to think the question of limits on Congress's "second subclause"
> power is not nearly as clear-cut as Paul suggests; but I think it's fair to
> say that if the Court rules against the AZ law, this legislation *might* preserve
> the Commission's districting map . . . or it might not.  (Of course the
> Court itself might say something in its opinion to clarify the scope of
> Congress's power that could greatly affect the analysis and point either in
> favor or against Congress's authority to, in effect, ratify and instantiate
> otherwise unconstitutional commission-drawn maps.)
>
> Thoughts?
>
> On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 11:49 AM, Dan Vicuna <DVicuna at commoncause.org>
> wrote:
>
>>  Hello everybody,
>>
>> The Rohrabacher-Lowenthal bill defending Congressional maps drawn by
>> independent commissions is attached.
>>
>> Dan
>>
>>
>>
>> Dan Vicuna
>>
>> National Redistricting Coordinator
>>
>> Common Cause
>>
>> Phone: (213) 623-1216
>>
>> Twitter: @DanVicuna <https://twitter.com/danvicuna>
>>
>> www.commoncause.org/redistricting
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20150522/deb1bd69/attachment.html>