Tea Party sues for "right" to redistrict Kentucky themselves

[jimrtex]

I swear I am not making this up...

http://nky.cincinnati.com/article/AB/20130426/NEWS010802/304260159/N-Ky-residents-sue-redistricting

Kentucky has not passed a constitutional legislative redistricting plan since the 2010 Census.  Rather than forcing the State to draw a constitutional map after the 2011 map was struck down, the court let the 2000-based map be used for 2012.  41 of the 100 districts have a deviation of 10% or more.

The largest district has 164% of the population of the smallest.

After letting them skate for 2012, the legislature has not passed a map.  They did not even consider a map.  They have 14 days from the opening of the session in 2014 and the filing deadline to get a map finished.   But the Kentucky Constitution requires residency in a district for a year before the election, and filing opens in November.  So potential candidates won't even be able to know what district they may have to run in before they file.

The plaintiffs demand the following judgment:

(1) Convening of a 3-judge panel;
(2) Monetary damages for the 2012 election;
(3) Declare the current maps unconstitutional;
(4) Enjoin the use of the current maps in 2014; permit the defendants (Beshear, et al) to submit and enact constitutional maps as soon as possible; or upon the failure of the defendants to do so to permit the plaintiffs to submit proposed maps, and for the court to draw appropriate maps for 2014.

The plaintiffs have a slam dunk case on the constitutional issues.  It is indefensible not to have districts based on 2010 population by now.  Beshear simply has to call a special session and the threat of a court-drawn map disappears.

It is quite normal that when a court draws a map to request maps from all parties.

If you are convinced that the Commonwealth won't act, and the plaintiffs will produce bad proposals or won't represent your interests to the court, you should intervene.

[jimrtex]

The fact that the legislature didn't do its job doesn't give the Tea Party the "right" to draw the new map. If the legislature keeps sitting on its hands, a nonpartisan panel - not the Tea Party - should draw the map.

That is not what the plaintiffs are demanding.  You didn't read the actual complaint.

The plaintiffs are residents of Boone, Kenton, and Campbell counties.  The "Tea Party" is not a plaintiff.

They are clearly being denied equal protection and due process.

It is entirely proper for a federal court to enjoin Kentucky from conducting 2014 elections on the malapportioned boundaries.  It would have been proper to stop the 2012 elections.

The next thing that they are demanding is that the Kentucky draw a lawful map in a timely fashion.  Under the Kentucky Constitution, the legislature (or maybe the Kentucky courts) are the only one who can draw a map.

The Attorney General if he has any sense will tell the governor that he can't win the case, and the federal court will be drawing the maps unless the legislature can get its act together.  The governor will call the leaders of the legislature and say "Look here, you better figure out real quick whether you can draw some legal maps.  You have two weeks to get me an answer.  If you can draw a map, I'll call a special session.  If you can't, I'll tell the court that we can't get it done."  If the legislature has interest in drawing the map, they'll draw a map.

If it gets toward August or so and no maps, the federal court will decide that it needs to draw the map.  It will ask for suggested maps from the parties.

If you don't want the plaintiffs participating in the drawing of the maps, you should call your governor and tell him to call a special session.

[jimrtex]

If the federal judge finds in favor of the plaintiff, then they can impose any solution that meets with federal law. If the plaintiff's map is the best option before the judge, then the judge can select that map. The judge can appoint an independent special master to draw the map but is under no obligation to do so.

That is exactly what the plaintiffs are demanding.

They are demanding that the 2014 elections not use the existing boundaries.  Entirely reasonable.

They are demanding that new boundaries be drawn in a timely fashion.  They'll ask the Secretary of State when the boundaries need to be set.  She'll say that filing begins in November, and the residency period begins in November.  The judges may ask whether filing can be adjusted.  It might be, since a January deadline is a bit early for a May 20 primary, but not hugely so.  And the federal judges would prefer to modify as little as possible.

They will figure out how long it will take them to review a legislature-drawn map and draw their own.   So maybe the end of August.  They will set a hearing for September 1 to see how the legislature is doing.  All the legislature has to do is draw a lawful map and the "threat" is over.

Beshear shouldn't be upset about this at all.  All he has to do call the legislature into session, and anticipate that the threat of a court-drawn map will get their attention.  A court-drawn map is much less likely to worry too much about protecting incumbents.

Only if Kentucky fails to pass a constitutional map in a timely fashion do they ask the federal court to draw a map.  They are not demanding that the plaintiffs be given the right to draw the map.  They are asking to be permitted to propose a map to the court.

The newspaper reporter is wrong.

[jimrtex]

I quite like the idea that anyone could submit a map to the judges, which would then pick the best. It has the potential to do a lot of good (provided that the judges are impartial, of course).

That is why there are 3-judge panels for election cases.  In the Texas redistricting case, if the 5th Circuit Justice had not written his dissent, the SCOTUS probably would not have stepped in, and the home-town judges would have got away with drawing the map.

The Democrats opposed intervention by neutral parties in the Texas case, and the hometown judge said we've got enough "help".