| Subject: Electionlawblog news and commentary 3/1/06 |
| From: Rick Hasen |
| Date: 3/1/2006, 8:21 AM |
| To: election-law |
The Hill offers this
report, which begins: "Sen. Tim Johnson (D-S.D.) will wade into the
debate over redistricting tomorrow, introducing a bill to establish a
bipartisan process to redraw congressional district lines.The bill will
be identical to House legislation put forward by Rep. John Tanner
(D-Tenn.) last year. Tanner's bill has 45 co-sponsors, including
Republican Reps. Phil Gingrey (Ga.) and Zach Wamp (Tenn.). Tanner's
bill would direct leaders of state legislatures to name members of a
bipartisan panel that would rewrite district boundaries following the
decennial population census. The measure is designed to cut down on the
increasingly popular practice of gerrymandering, in which states redraw
district lines to benefit one party, to protect incumbents or for other
political reasons." I've said
before (see last paragraph) that partisan gerrymandering may best
be solved through political means, not Court fiat.
Roll Call offers Ruling Could Jolt House Races (paid subscription required), which begins: "With the balance of power on Capitol Hill potentially at stake, the Supreme Court today will hear a challenge to the 2003 remap of Texas House districts engineered by Rep. Tom DeLay (R), which resulted in a 12-seat swing in the Republicans' favor in the 2004 elections. If the court finds for the plaintiffs and immediately throws out a map that transformed Texas from a 17-15 Democratic majority in House seats to a 21-11 minority, Democrats, who now need to win 15 Republican seats to take over the House, could see that margin cut to as few as eight." In the article, Ned Foley essentially calls the issue a toss-up for the Court (though saying "we're most likely to get a narrow ruling that's directed at this mid-decade phenomenon"), while Nate Persily predicts that the Court: "will come out with a narrow opinion saying that mid-decade gerrymanders that are solely justified as an effort to maximize partisan gain are unconstitutional." Perhaps. Only Justice Kennedy knows for sure.
In other coverage, Bloomberg News offers DeLay's
Texas Voting Map Raises Partisanship Issue. NPR offers this
audio report. The New York Times offers this
editorial, and Roll Call offers this
editorial. Ed Blum and Roger Clegg offer their
thoughts at National Review Online. See also here.
My own views on how the Court should resolve the Texas case are here.
Later today, Ned Foley should have a report from oral argument here.
You can find stories in the New York Times; Washington Post; Los Angeles Times; USA Today; Legal Times; Knight Ridder. See also reports from oral argument by Ned Foley (with follow up); Lyle Denniston; Bob Bauer; and Allison Hayward.
At the Moritz roundtable Brad Smith replies to Rick Pildes on the Vermont case.
-- Rick Hasen William H. Hannon Distinguished Professor of Law Loyola Law School 919 Albany Street Los Angeles, CA 90015-1211 (213)736-1466 (213)380-3769 - fax rick.hasen@lls.edu http://www.lls.edu/academics/faculty/hasen.html http://electionlawblog.org