Regarding the "TBD" states below. At least in Virginia new districts
will be drawn by the current legislature beginning in January.
Republican House and Governor, Democratic Senate), with the 2011 state
elections contested under the new lines.
On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 12:43 PM, Derek Muller <derek.muller@gmail.com>
wrote:
On redistricting, I reached some slightly different numbers, but
I thought I'd share them and happily offer them as another data
point. I used the EDS figures, and I made a handful of
projections (CO and NY, among others).
Single District States (7): AK, DE, MT, ND, SD, VT, WY
Commissions (88): AZ (9), CA (53), HI (2), ID (2), NJ (12), WA (10)
Democratic control (44): AR (4), IL (18), MD (8), MA (9), RI (2) [*1],
WV (3)
[*1] Veto-proof Democratic majority
Divided control (104): CO (7), CT (5), FL (27) [*2], IA (4), KY (6),
MN (8), MO (9), NV (3), NM (3), NY (27), OR (5)
[*2] Veto-proof Republican majority, but redistricting must adhere to
nonpartisan standards
Republican control (163): AL (7), GA (14), IN (9), KS (4), ME (2), MI
(14), NE (3) [*3], NH (2) [*4], NC (13) [*5], OH (16), OK (5), PA
(18), SC (7), TN (9), TX (36), UT (4), WI (8)
[*3] Nonpartisan unicameral legislature
[*4] Veto-proof Republican majority
[*5] Governor cannot veto redistricting maps
To be determined by 2011 elections (19): LA (6), MS (4), VA (11)
Derek
Derek T. Muller
Visiting Assistant Professor of Law
Penn State Dickinson School of Law
Lewis Katz Building
University Park, PA 16802
814-867-3411
On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 12:25 PM, Rick Hasen <rick.hasen@lls.edu>
wrote:
NOVEMBER 03, 2010
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.
Posted by Rick Hasen at 09:14 AM
"The Impact of the 2010 Elections on the Impending Redistricting
Process"
Nate Persily blogs. In addition, Justin's take on this question is
here.
Posted by Rick Hasen at 09:05 AM
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.
Posted by Rick Hasen at 08:56 AM
Will Chair Issa's First Investigative Subpoena Target the New
Black Panthers Issue at DOJ?
Al Kamen says "maybe."
Posted by Rick Hasen at 08:35 AM
"Recount Redux: How this year's might look the same -- and a bit
different -- from 2008"
Jay Weiner explains Recount 2.0 in Minnesota.
Posted by Rick Hasen at 08:29 AM
"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.
Posted by Rick Hasen at 08:24 AM
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.
Posted by Rick Hasen at 08:19 AM
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.
Continue reading "What Tuesday Means for Redistricting"
Posted by Justin Levitt at 04:49 AM
--
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
_______________________________________________
election-law mailing list
election-law@mailman.lls.edu
http://mailman.lls.edu/mailman/listinfo/election-law
_______________________________________________
election-law mailing list
election-law@mailman.lls.edu
http://mailman.lls.edu/mailman/listinfo/election-law