Three Judge Court Refuses Intervenors' Request to Make Findings as to any "Irregularities" in the Settlement in the Georgia v. Holder Section 5 Redistricting Case

A very interesting request denied.

"The Impact of the 2010 Elections on the Impending Redistricting Process"

Nate Persily blogs. In addition, Justin's take on this question is here.

Judicial Elections: The Crocodile in the Bathroom Just Got Sharper Teeth

The late great California Supreme Court justice Otto Kaus is perhaps best remembered nationally for a statement he made about judicial elections and the in terrorem effect of judges having to stand for reelection (even retention elections): ""You cannot forget the fact that you have a crocodile in your bathtub...You keep wondering whether you're letting yourself be influenced, and you do not know. You do not know yourself that well."

Now, with the news that three Justices of the Iowa Supreme Court have been voted out of office because of their decision in a gay marriage case, I am sure many judges in states with judicial elections will, consciously or not, allow their fear of being voted out of office affect how they rule on hot button issues. Some say that the Iowa result is a good result because it means we are holding judges accountable. I disagree. Even in a world of judicial retention elections, in my view it is only proper to vote against a sitting judge when that judge has done something ethically improper (such as taking a bribe) or has consistently issued rulings that are unprincipled or intellectually dishonest. In contrast, reasonable justices can differ on the constitutionality of gay marriage bans, and a judge who votes one way or the other on that issue should not be voted out of office because of a single, principled vote.

I think the Iowa result is only going to embolden groups to fight even harder in judicial elections next time around. Dahlia Lithwick and I tried to show how ugly the world of judicial elections has become. Voters in Nevada, who did not listen to Justice O'Connor's wake-up call, soundly rejected a ballot measure that would have moved the state from competitive elections to appointment followed by retention election. I am not aware of any state that has moved from any kind of judicial election toward either an appointment model or a federal model of appointment. So I'm not sure what the answer is, but I'm very pessimistic about how elected judges are going to be able to handle the pressure.

Will Chair Issa's First Investigative Subpoena Target the New Black Panthers Issue at DOJ?

Al Kamen says "maybe."

"Recount Redux: How this year's might look the same -- and a bit different -- from 2008"

Jay Weiner explains Recount 2.0 in Minnesota.

"Portland voters rejecting Measure 26-108's publicly funded campaign program"

See here. In contrast, as I noted last night, the measure to get rid of Florida's public financing plan failed to attain the 60% necessary as a constitutional amendment.

Close Major Races Not Yet Decided/Recount Possible

U.S. Senate, Washington State: Murray leading, likely to win with margin that would avoid recount.

U.S. Senate, Colorado: Bennet ahead by about 7,000 votes with 87% of vote counted; automatic recount triggered if margin about 3,900 votes or less (the Denver Post has called this for Bennett)

U.S. Senate, Alaska: "Write-in" is ahead of Miller by over 13,000 votes. Though Miller has not yet conceded, and there doubtless will be a fair number of votes among the write-ins that election officials will not count for Murkowski (because voter intent was unclear), this one looks like it is beyond the margin of litigation (which is a good thing too, because a close race depending upon voter intent on write-ins could have been very ugly)

Governor, Minnesota: Poor Minnesota. It looks like we'll have an automatic recount, because the Dayton-Emmer contest is within a half of a percentage point. From the Star Tribune story: "'It looks like it's recount part II: And this time it's personal,' said state Republican Party Chair Tony Sutton." Yes, it is a bad horror movie meets "Groundhog Day."

In the end nationally, if things break in the Senate the way they appear to be breaking it will be Democrats with 53 in the Senate to 47 Republicans in the House. The NYT now has Republicans +60 in the House, with 11 seats yet to be determined. That makes my predictions yesterday morning (Senate, 52-48; House, Republicans +65-70) pretty close, and closer than the 54-55 Republican House gain predicted by Nate Silver yesterday at the same time.)

UPDATE: Ned Foley flags Connecticut governor's race as a "yellow alert" state.

What Tuesday Means for Redistricting

[Justin Levitt here, guest posting -- with thanks to Rick, as always.]

As the red-eye flights of recount lawyers touch down Wednesday morning, attention will inevitably flow to the federal races still in overtime. But there is a bloody redistricting cycle just ahead with the potential to lock down Tuesday's gains for the GOP. And for those looking for ripples from yesterday's elections, there are a few state races, still too close to call, that deserve more attention for their impact on redistricting than they normally receive.

A little context to convey the magnitude of Tuesday's political shift -- and the stakes of the elections still undecided -- for the coming redistricting cycle:

In 2001:
- 121 Congressional seats were drawn in states where Democrats controlled the redistricting process;
- 95 seats were drawn in states where Republicans controlled the redistricting process; and
- 212 seats were drawn in states with divided control. (7 states have one district apiece.)

In 2011, based on the preliminary unofficial returns thus far from Tuesday's elections (nice summary here), and projections for the size of each state's 2012 Congressional delegation (contesting sources here and here):
- 189 Congressional seats will be drawn in states where Republicans are likely to control the redistricting process;
- 26 seats will be drawn in states where Democrats are likely to control the process;
- 145 seats will be drawn in states with divided control . . . and
- 68 seats, more or less, await the results of races that were too close to call early Wednesday morning.

Of course, partisan control is hardly the only factor driving the redistricting process in many of these states, and I don't mean to imply that 189 seats drawn by Republican legislators will be drawn solely to maximize Republican electoral fortunes, or that they will yield 189 Republican seats -- not even close. History has shown, though, that unified partisan control often acts as a powerful thumb on the scales when district lines are drawn.

More analysis of the most important still-undecided races for redistricting, and how we got to where we are now, after the jump. For more detail, there's a more complete description of the way that each state conducts redistricting in the Citizen's Guide to Redistricting (2010 update coming momentarily, I'm told); the Rose Institute also has a handy easy-reference map.