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