Tag Archives: redistricting

Supreme Court Preview — October Term 2023 — Part 3

By tmess2 | Published September 24, 2023

In this last part of our Supreme Court preview, the topic shifts from the cases that will definitely be heard this year to the cases in the pipeline.  The U.S. Supreme Court receives around 5,000 petitions for review every year, but they only grant review in approximately 60 cases per year.  Now, some of those 5,000 petitions are clearly frivolous and have zero chance of being granted.  But, even eliminating the clearly delusional petitions, that translates into something like one petition out of seventy petitions being accepted for review.  So any discussion of what cases might get full review is very, very speculative.

Now, we know that some cases will technically be heard.  There is a very limited category of cases that have direct appeals to the U.S.  Supreme Court.  But that does not mean that the Supreme Court grants full merits briefing and argument in all of those cases.  Instead, the U.S. Supreme Court often simply issues a short opinion or order affirming the trial court decision based on the initial pleadings of the parties.  For example, we know that Alabama wants the Supreme Court to take another look at their redistricting case now that the three-judge panel has held that their second attempt at redistricting failed to remedy the previous violation.  The easy decision of the U.S. Supreme Court is to reject this effort, but they might choose to wade back into this area.

So what seems likely?  The first thing that is almost certainly the case is that the U.S. Supreme Court will take a good chunk of cases from the Fifth Circuit and the Ninth Circuit.  There are two reasons for this.  First, these circuits are just big.  The Ninth Circuit is both big geographically and in population (including the states of Arizona, California, Oregon, and Washington).  The Fifth is not as big geographically but it does include Texas.  Second, both courts are somewhat politically lopsided which has made them the “go to” circuits for people who are shopping for a friendly court for an ideological case.  So the Fifth Circuit is likely to issue opinions which are too conservative even for this bunch of justices, and the Ninth Circuit is likely to issue opinions which are too liberal for this Supreme Court. Continue Reading...

Posted in Judicial | Also tagged , , , Comments Off on Supreme Court Preview — October Term 2023 — Part 3

Supreme Court Preview — October Term 2023 — Part 1

By tmess2 | Published September 10, 2023

We are three weeks away from the First Monday in October which means that the Supreme Court will soon be back in session.  Putting to the side the continued questions about the ethical failings of certain ultra-conservative justices (who unfortunately would never be convicted by the Senate even in the unlikely event that the more ethically-challenged Republican caucus in the House would actually allow articles of impeachment to pass), that means time to look ahead to the politically-significant cases on this year’s docket.

For a brief refresher, during its annual term, the U.S. Supreme Court sits in seven argument sessions.  Each of these argument sessions lasts for two weeks.  After five of these argument sessions, the U.S. Supreme Court takes a two-week break (with longer breaks over the holidays and after the January argument session).   Typically, for ease of convenience, the sessions are referred to as the October, November, December, January, February, March, and April sessions even though some sessions will begin in one month and conclude in another month (like the November session this year which will begin on October 30).  During the argument session, the Supreme Court hears oral arguments on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday.  If one of those days is a holiday, that day is skipped.  There is no firm rule (as the Supreme Court will make adjustments if the docket requires it), but a “full” docket will have two arguments in the morning on each day.  Subject to adjustment if a third party (usually the Solicitor General if a case involves a federal statute) is permitted to argue, the party that lost below gets thirty minutes to argue and answer questions followed by thirty minutes for the party that won below followed by a brief rebuttal argument by the party that lost below.

On the Friday before the argument session, the justices meet to review pending petitions for review and to finalize any opinions to be released the following week.  There are similar conferences on the Fridays on the weeks in which there are arguments at which the justices also discuss the arguments that were heard that week and take an initial vote on those cases which is used to assign a justice to write an opinion.  On the Mondays of argument week (and the Monday after the argument week), the Supreme Court releases on order list announcing the decision on pending petitions for review.   In the early part of the term, there might be a separate list announcing the cases accepted for review on Friday to give the parties additional time to start preparing their briefs (the written arguments on the case) as the time schedule gets rather tight for completing the briefs before the oral argument.  Because of those time limits on the written briefs, the January argument session is effectively the cut-off date for a case being heard during the term.  If review is granted after January, the case is held for the following term.  Thus, the cases that we are about to discuss are those that the Supreme Court granted review on between February and June.  (On rare occasions, as it did for one case this year, the Supreme Court may add a case during its summer recess, but the norm is that — other than emergency matters — the period between July 1 and October 1 is quiet.)  The cases that they will accept (some of which may be discussed in Part III of this preview) in the next several weeks will be argued in the second half of this term. Continue Reading...

Posted in Civil Rights, House of Representatives, Judicial | Also tagged , , , , , , , Comments Off on Supreme Court Preview — October Term 2023 — Part 1

The Mostly Dead Independent State Legislature Theory

By tmess2 | Published July 1, 2023

Two clauses of the Constitution — one for Congressional elections and one for the selection of presidential electors — give the primary responsibility for adopting the rules governing elections to state legislatures.  The problem with these two clauses is that the U.S. Constitution does not create state legislatures.  Instead, state legislatures are created by the states themselves.  Not too surprisingly, different states structure their legislatures differently — one state (Nebraska) only has a unicameral legislature, many states allow the voters to initiate and approve legislation, each state has a different number of legislative districts, and some states have unique rules on what laws can be vetoed by governors and how many votes it takes to override a veto.

Traditionally, the Supreme Court has resolved this problem by holding that the election clauses simply refer to the legislative power of the state.  Each state is free to create its own rules about the composition of the state legislature, how many votes it takes to pass legislation, and which body gets to make certain election-related decisions (including delegating the redistricting power to independent commissions).    There has been a theory floating for years on the conservative side that these clauses establish a state legislative power that is “independent” of state law and state constitutions.  While this theory keeps reemerging, this theory has repeatedly failed to be adopted by the U.S. Supreme Court.

In the last round of redistricting, several state court (including North Carolina, Ohio, and New York) invalidated redistricing maps based on state constitutional provisions related to elections.  Initially, the North Carolina courts invalidated that’s states congressional redistricting plans.   North Carolina Republicans asked for the Supreme Court to review that decision based on the independent state legislature theory arguing that the U.S. Constitution barred state courts from interfering with the state legislature’s power under the U.S. Constitution to set election laws related to federal elections even if those laws violated the state constitution. Continue Reading...

Posted in Elections, Judicial | Also tagged , , Comments Off on The Mostly Dead Independent State Legislature Theory

Supreme Court — The Last Week

By tmess2 | Published June 24, 2023

As we have discussed for the past several weeks, the Supreme Court is nearing the end of its term.  After two opinion days this past week, we are down to ten cases left on the docket (or eight if you treat the two Affirmative Action cases and two student loan cases as one case each).  At this point in time, we know that Tuesday will be an opinion release day.  It is almost certain that there will be opinions on Wednesday or Thursday (or maybe both days).

As noted in past posts, the Supreme Court tries to keep things balanced within each month (i.e. if there are fewer than nine cases to be decided from one of the “monthly” argument sessions, it is highly unlikely that any justice will be assigned multiple opinion) and across the term as a whole.  In the past weeks, we still had enough cases left undecided from March and April to leave things murky.  But things are now looking very clear (with the understanding that authorship can shift if the assigned justice loses the majority or a case gets dismissed).  But none of the cases issued so far look to have flipped and the one dismissed case was not pending long enough to get assigned.

That balance for the term is key for the projection for November and February.  We are likely looking at a total number of opinions for the term in the mid-fifties.  That means that no justice should have more than seven opinions for the term, and, if any justice has seven opinions, the rest should have six opinions. Continue Reading...

Posted in Judicial | Also tagged , , , , , Comments Off on Supreme Court — The Last Week

Supreme Court — Two Weeks to Go

By tmess2 | Published June 18, 2023

We are now down to two weeks left before the effective end of this year’s Supreme Court term.  (Officially, the term ends at the start of October when the next term begins.  But the Supreme Court usually issues all of its opinions before the Fourth of July and only handles emergency matters in July, August, and September.)  As was noted in the post two weeks ago, there are some unwritten rules regarding how the workload is distributed among the justices which makes it possible (not easy but possible) to speculate about who might have which cases.

One complicating factor in this year’s term (as discussed two weeks ago and last week) is that we do not know how many written opinions we are getting this term.  There are three ways that we could end up with fewer opinions:  1) in related cases, the Supreme Court could “consolidate” the cases and issue one opinion covering both cases (this normally happens before argument, but can happen when opinions are assigned); 2) in related cases, the Supreme Court could decide to issue a signed opinion in one case and an unsigned opinion in the other case; and 3) the Supreme Court can dismiss a case after argument.  We have already seen all three possibilities occur this term.  We could have up to eighteen opinions still to come this term.  At the present time, we know that we will have two opinion days this upcoming week.  In last week’s two opinion days, we only get five opinions, but we got six opinions on one day back in May.  My hunch says that we are likely looking at two or three opinion days the week of June 26, but the Supreme Court tends to keep that information closely held and it tends to not announce the last opinion day until the next-to-last opinion day.

How many opinions we have left matters because the Supreme Court tends to try to keep the workload balanced.  If we have eighteen opinions left, there will be fifty-six total opinions for the term which would mean that every justice would have six opinions with two justices getting seven opinions.  But it is possible that some of the remaining cases could have no opinion.  While, due to Justice Jackson recusing in the Harvard case, it is unlikely that the two Affirmative Action cases will be consolidated, it is easy to see a signed opinion in the North Carolina case and an unsigned opinion in the Harvard case.  We could see a consolidated opinion in the student loan forgiveness cases.  And everyone is expecting a dismissal in the North Carolina redistricting case. Continue Reading...

Posted in Civil Rights, Judicial, LGBT | Also tagged , , , , , , , Comments Off on Supreme Court — Two Weeks to Go

Voting Rights Act — A Glimmer of Hope

By tmess2 | Published June 11, 2023

On Thursday, the United Supreme Court issued its opinion in Allen v. Milligan,  a case in which Alabama voters challenged the state’s new congressional district lines under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.  As people may remember, due to COVID and the resulting delay in the 2020 census, Alabama completed its redistricting process shortly before filing began.  Although the voters quickly filed their case, and the three-judge panel quickly heard the challenge and issued its decision, a 5-4 majority decided that any change caused by any new lines issued by the judges would be too close to the start of the election process (but that the legislation changing the lines was not) for the judge-drawn lines to be used in the 2022 election.  So the 2022 election was held under the new lines drawn by the legislature while the U.S. Supreme Court decided whether those lines were valid.  In its ruling this week, five justices (with Justice Kavanaugh switching sides and Justice Jackson replacing Justice Breyer) upheld the trial court ruling.

To start with the legal considerations, Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act bars any voting practice or procedure that causes a protected group to “have less opportunity than other” groups “to elect representatives of their choice.”  While Section 2 also contains language disavowing an express requirement of proportionality, previous cases have found that Section 2 applies to redistricting and that it requires those bodies charged with redistricting to consider whether the maps give sufficiently large racial and ethnic groups a fair shot at electing a proportionate number of members.  Basically, this is done by drawing either “minority influence” districts (in which minorities are a large enough percentage of the voters that they can form a majority by aligning with like-minded non-minority voters) and “minority majority” districts. (in which the minority group is over 50% of the likely voters).

The current language in Section 2 was adopted in the early 1980s.  The first major case applying Section 2 to redistricting devised a three-part test.  First, the voters needed to show that minority voters are sufficiently concentrated that there is a reasonable map which would give them an additional minority influence or minority majority district.  In equal protection cases, the Supreme Court has made clear that maps that grossly violate traditional considerations to force geographically dispersed minority enclaves into the same district are forbidden.  Second, the voters must show that the minority group is politically cohesive.  In other words, that a significant majority sees itself as one group and tend to support the same type of candidate.  (For example, it might be harder to show that Asian voters are a group but easier to show that Vietnamese voters are a group.)  Third, the voters must show that the majority group (almost always white voters) will oppose the candidate supported by the minority group.   In other words, the last two parts require showing that racialized voting is still common in the jurisdiction. Continue Reading...

Posted in Civil Rights, Elections, House of Representatives, Identity Politics, Judicial | Also tagged , , , , , , Comments Off on Voting Rights Act — A Glimmer of Hope

Quick Hit — Redistricting and Voting Rights Act

By tmess2 | Published June 8, 2023

Today’s Supreme Court opinions included a 5-4 decision affirming a preliminary judgment invaidating the Alabama Congressional Districts under the Voting Rights Act.  We will have a more detailed analysis of the decision this weekend.  But the quick hit is that this decision will probably result in new lines in Alabama and Louisiana which will include a second African-American majority district in both states.

This decision partially offsets the impact of the weird, blatantly partisan, decision of the North Carolina Supreme Court to revert back to the original map after originally striking that map down, and New York might try to draw a new set of lines.  Thus, the state of play for the House is still up to further legislation action this fall.  But, today was a good day for a more representative House.

Posted in Civil Rights, Judicial | Also tagged , , Comments Off on Quick Hit — Redistricting and Voting Rights Act

Supreme Court — October Term 2022 Preview (Part 1)

By tmess2 | Published September 24, 2022

It’s that time of year again.  After upending the Constitution at the end of the 2021-22 term in June, the Supreme Court begins its 2022-23 term in just over a week.

A quick refresher.  From October through late April/Early May., the Supreme Court will have seven two-week argument sessions.  With the exception of extended breaks after the “December” and January argument sessions, the typical schedule is two weeks of arguments followed by a two-week recess.  In most of the weeks, the Supreme Court will have arguments on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday (except when one of those days is holiday — either legal or religious).  On argument days, the Supreme Court will usually hear two cases in the morning.  (That “usual” is very flexible.  With the declining number of cases granted in recent years, we have been seeing more single argument days.  Additionally, if there is a very complex case, they might give that case extended time and limit themselves to one case.  Rarer is having enough cases that they also schedule an afternoon argument.)  They will then meet in a “conference” on Friday to discuss the cases heard that week and to consider petitions for review (officially called petitions for certiorari).  They also meet in a conference on the Friday before the argument session to consider petitions for review.  Orders on the petitions for review are released on the Monday after the conference.  In discussing the cases heard, the Supreme Court will take a tentative vote and the “senior justice in the majority” (either the Chief Justice or the longest serving Associate Justice) will assign one of the justices to write an opinion. Opinions can be released at any time after the argument.

The October argument session (and the term) officially begins on the first Monday in October (October 3, this year).  They will meet in the “long conference” to kick off the term on September 28.  (It is called the long conference because petitions for review have been piling up since the last conference of the 2021-22 back in late June.) Continue Reading...

Posted in Judicial | Also tagged , , , , , , , , , , Comments Off on Supreme Court — October Term 2022 Preview (Part 1)

The 2022 Elections: Revenge of the Trumpists

By tmess2 | Published May 1, 2022

We are on the eve of the start of the first big segment of the primary season for the 2022 election.  Texas had its primary back in March, but primary season really starts this Tuesday with primaries in Ohio and and Indiana.

Including the Texas run-off, there are primaries or run=offs set for every week between now and June 28 other than the week of Memorial Day.  During that period, a grand total of thirty states will have primaries or run-offs (with some having both).  There is normally a longer breaker between the Spring primaries and the late Summer/early fall round of primaries.  But due to postponed election dates, Maryland will have its primary in mid-July and North Carolina will have its run-off on July 5 or July 26, depending on the offices which require a run-off.  Phase two of the primary season begins on August 2 and runs through September 13.

Mid-term elections are tough for the party in power.   The public always want the big problems solved instantly.  And big problems are typically years in the making and will require years to solve.  Making things worse, the party that wins an election always tries to pass what their primary voters want (which is not the same as what general election voters want) but ends up with in-fighting between the various factions of the party.  It has been a long time since any party has won by a big enough margin to be able to pass legislation despite those differences. Continue Reading...

Posted in Elections, General Election Forecast, House of Representatives, Senate | Also tagged , , Comments Off on The 2022 Elections: Revenge of the Trumpists

The Supreme Court and Voting Rights

By tmess2 | Published February 13, 2022

Parties seeking to challenge a new law have to make a choice between filing a case in federal court (assuming that they have a federal constitutional claim) and filing in state court.  Unless you have a favorable state Supreme Court, the usual tendency is to file in federal court.  However, it is becoming very clear that, if you are challenging an illegal redistricting plan, you really have to file in state court as the U.S. Supreme Court will not be give any assistance to plaintiffs.

This week, the U.S. Supreme Court had what should have been a no-brainer.  When faced with a challenge to the Alabama district lines under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, the three-judge panel issued a lengthy order which included detailed analysis of the evidence and tracked the governing precedent under Section 2.  Under the existing law (and the plain language of Section 2), the Alabama maps were and are illegal.  Under the legal standards governing a stay (which takes into account the merits and the interests of the parties), there was no basis for a stay.  The Supreme Court should have denied the stay and summarily affirmed the judgment.

But that’s not what the Supreme Court did,   By a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court issued the stay and put the case on the argument docket for the fall.  Because there is no requirement for opinions on stays, we only know the reasoning of some of the justices.  And what we do know gives a strong hint that the Voting Rights Act is effectively dead. Continue Reading...

Posted in Civil Rights, Elections, Judicial | Also tagged , , , , Comments Off on The Supreme Court and Voting Rights