US House Redistricting: Maine
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 03:12:22 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Geography & Demographics (Moderators: muon2, 15 Down, 35 To Go)
  US House Redistricting: Maine
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5
Author Topic: US House Redistricting: Maine  (Read 21167 times)
Kevinstat
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,823


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: June 09, 2011, 06:17:33 PM »
« edited: June 09, 2011, 06:20:02 PM by Kevinstat »

Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Full article
Logged
JohnnyLongtorso
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,798


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: June 09, 2011, 06:24:37 PM »

So I take it the court is going to either choose the map they like best or draw the lines themselves?
Logged
Kevinstat
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,823


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: June 09, 2011, 06:26:35 PM »

A better (in my opinion) MPBN article on the ruling, with some commentary from some of the parties involved and some others like the Maine GOP Chair.
Logged
Kevinstat
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,823


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: June 09, 2011, 06:30:47 PM »

So I take it the court is going to either choose the map they like best or draw the lines themselves?

I'm not sure about that.  It might be that "let the Legislature redraw the lines under the provisions in the Maine Constitution" (which are none beyond the general provisions for "normal" legislation, the statutory provisions arguably only applying to years ending in 3) would be an acceptable "proposal".
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: June 10, 2011, 05:44:42 AM »

So I take it the court is going to either choose the map they like best or draw the lines themselves?

I'm not sure about that.  It might be that "let the Legislature redraw the lines under the provisions in the Maine Constitution" (which are none beyond the general provisions for "normal" legislation, the statutory provisions arguably only applying to years ending in 3) would be an acceptable "proposal".
The Maine legislature is free to redistrict at any time (at least under the US Constitution and federal law).

The federal court can't do anything beyond determining that Maine may not conduct an election on the current boundaries, and if it appears that there will be no State remedy, to fashion a remedy, which would be limited to minimal changes (the federal court has no authority to make political decisions).

They could just set a deadline for the legislature to act (November-December), and then draw a map that shifts the fewest towns.

It would seem like a similar case could be made against legislative districts.  It appears the maximum Senate deviation is around 20%, and for the House 44%.  It might require different plaintiffs.
Logged
Kevinstat
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,823


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: June 12, 2011, 01:16:19 PM »
« Edited: June 12, 2011, 02:00:24 PM by Kevinstat »

It would seem like a similar case could be made against legislative districts.  It appears the maximum Senate deviation is around 20%, and for the House 44%.  It might require different plaintiffs.

Yeah, it would probably require different plaintiffs, assuming the 2010 redistricting data's populations for the Senate and House districts covering the plaintiffs' hometown of Cape Elizabeth are correct (they aren't everywhere, at least in terms of some municipalities not being in the right district or not split where they are or split where they aren't, so it would be a freak coincidence if the population figures for those districts are correct).  Senate District 7 (South Portland, Cape Elizabeth and part of Scarbourough) is given a 2010 resident population of 37,687 (-0.70%).  House District 121 (part of Cape Elizabeth) apparantly had only 7,666 residents (-12.86%).  House District 123 (the remainders of Cape Elizabeth and South Portland, which has two whole districts of its own) had 9,154 residents (+4.06%), which is odd considering the four districts in those two towns average 3.33% below the ideal district population, but the figures for the House district portions of each town add up as do the Senate district portions of Scarborough.  I didn't check the Senate district including the remainder of Scarborough which has another split town the remainder of which is in with the remainder of Portland (too much work).  But anyway, House District 123 is within acceptable range and the 2013 redistricting will likely result in residents of that portion of Cape Elizabeth only losing 39 more fellow district residents than they gain, as Cape Elizabeth will most likley coincide with one House district (2010 resident population 9,015 (+2.48%)) and South Portland and Scarborough (which currenly has an even two House districts which are overpopulated by an average of 7.53%) will probably combine for five (averaging 0.15% below the ideal district population).
Logged
BigSkyBob
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,531


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: June 12, 2011, 01:37:33 PM »

It would seem like a similar case could be made against legislative districts.  It appears the maximum Senate deviation is around 20%, and for the House 44%.  It might require different plaintiffs.

Yeah, it would probably require different plaintiffs, assuming the 2010 redistricting data's populations for the Senate and House districts covering the plaintiffs' hometown of Cape Elizabeth are correct (they aren't everywhere, at least in terms of some municipalities not being in the right district or not split where they are or split where they aren't, so it would be a freak coincidence if the population figures for those districts are correct).  Senate District 7 (South Portland, Cape Elizabeth and part of Scarbourough) is given a 2010 resident population of 37,687 (-0.70%).  House District 121 (part of Cape Elizabeth) apparantly had only 7,666 residents (-12.86%).  House District 123 (the remainders of Cape Elizabeth and South Portland, which has two whole districts of its own) had 9,154 residents (+4.06%), which is odd considering the four districts in those two towns average 3.33% below the ideal district population, but the figures for the House district portions of each town add up as do the Senate district portions of Scarborough.  I didn't check the Senate district including the remainder of Scarborough which has another split town the remainder of which is in with the remainder of Portland (too much work).  But anyway, House District 123 is within acceptable range and the 2013 redistricting will likely result in residents of that portion of Cape Elizabeth only losing 39 more fellow district residents than they gain, as Cape Elizabeth will most likley coincide with one House district (2010 resident population 9,015 (+2.48%)) and South Portland and Scarborough (which currenly has an even two House districts which are overpopulated by an average of 7.53%) will combine probably combine for five (averaging 0.15% below the ideal district population).


Finding the appropriate plantiffs., and filing, are merely technical exercises. The only reason there won't be a legeslative redistricting for 2012 is that noone wants one.


The pathetic part is that instead of taking the Congressional ruling seriously, Maine might wait to be forced to redistrict in a seperate lawsuit that ends with Maine paying the second set of plantiffs their attorney fees.
Logged
Kevinstat
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,823


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: June 12, 2011, 01:59:27 PM »

Well, BigSkyBob beat me the point of the paragraph I breifly added to my last post (I posted multiple times while I was composing because I had earlier lost a lot), but I thought I'd add it here as I spent some time on it.

-----

Of course, the reason a lawsuit challenging Maine's delayed congressional districting may not happen (I'd say probably not at this point) has nothing to do with where plaintiffs live (although if either of my legislative districts were overpopulated by more than 5%... (my Senate district is +0.57%, while my House district is +3.66%; although my House district at least is more than 10% (of the ideal district population) greater than some House districts (like House District 121)).  Anyway, the two main reasons such a suit might not happen are (a) a favorable federal court ruling is less certain, as jimrtex discussed here) and (b) the likely result of a successful lawsuit against the 2012 legislative elections being held using the current districts being used in 2012 would be a court-drawn plan being used, while the liekly result of the successful lawsuit against Maine using its current congressional districts in 2012 is the Republican-majority legislature and Republican governor being able to do whatever they want, subject only to a people's veto (and in the event of a plan being suspended by a people's veto, even if the signatures were collected early enough for the referendum to be this November rather than with the primary elections next June, the three-judge panel might order the suspended or "people's vetoed" Republican congressional district plan be used in 2012 anyway).  And the current Maine statute governing congressional redistricting requires it only "If the districts do not conform to Supreme Judicial Court guidelines," so a people's veto couldn't even force a 2013 review where LePage couldn't veto any change to whatever plan the Republicans rammed through in 2012, although there might be some room for litigation by the Democrats if the congreessional districts used in 2012 weren't on the books yet due to a successful people's veto.
Logged
Kevinstat
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,823


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: June 12, 2011, 02:10:02 PM »
« Edited: June 17, 2011, 07:33:34 PM by Kevinstat »

Finding the appropriate plantiffs., and filing, are merely technical exercises. The only reason there won't be a legeslative redistricting for 2012 is that noone wants one.

Well, "noone wants one enough to get the necessary legal staff (including paying them or convincing them to work pro bono) to have a decent shot at prevailing in a less than slam dunk lawsuit" (I considered the one just informally decided to be a slam dunk for the plaintiffs) might be a more accurate discription.

The pathetic part is that instead of taking the Congressional ruling seriously, Maine might wait to be forced to redistrict in a seperate lawsuit that ends with Maine paying the second set of plantiffs their attorney fees.

What makes you think that might happen?  (I imagine the current plaintiffs will be paid their attorney fees though.)
Logged
BigSkyBob
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,531


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: June 12, 2011, 07:08:44 PM »

Finding the appropriate plantiffs., and filing, are merely technical exercises. The only reason there won't be a legeslative redistricting for 2012 is that noone wants one.

Well, "noone wants one enough to get the necessary legal staff (including paying them or convincing them to work pro bono) to have a decent shot at prevailing in a less than slam dunk lawsuit" (I considered the one just informally decided to be a slam dunk for the plaintiffs) might me a more accurate discription.

The pathetic part is that instead of taking the Congressional ruling seriously, Maine might wait to be forced to redistrict in a seperate lawsuit that ends with Maine paying the second set of plantiffs their attorney fees.

What makes you think that might happen?  (I imagine the current plaintiffs will be paid their attorney fees though.)


The 20% variation in one district.
Logged
Kevinstat
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,823


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: June 12, 2011, 08:48:48 PM »

Oh, I thought you meant that the state would ignore the ruling to redraw its congressional districts, when that would be (well, it probably isn't unprecedented but it would be asking for serious legal trouble) and the Republicans in power probably won't mind redrawing the districts anyway.

Maine's Constitution would seem to bar the state from redrawing its Legislative districts before 2013 unless forced to by a legal challenge.  The constitution could be amended this year to allow for a redistricting before the 2012 elections but with Maine's filing period beginning on January 1 the year of the election and a 1941 Maine Supreme Judicial Court ruling that you can't pass a law that goes against the current language of the state constitution even conditionally upon the constitution being amended to allow whatever is being done in statutory law, you'd probably have to add the definitions of the new legislative districts into the Maine Constitution, which would probably make the majority of the text of the constitution House and Senate district descriptions.
Logged
BigSkyBob
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,531


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: June 13, 2011, 12:59:55 AM »

Oh, I thought you meant that the state would ignore the ruling to redraw its congressional districts, when that would be (well, it probably isn't unprecedented but it would be asking for serious legal trouble) and the Republicans in power probably won't mind redrawing the districts anyway.

Maine's Constitution would seem to bar the state from redrawing its Legislative districts before 2013 unless forced to by a legal challenge.  The constitution could be amended this year to allow for a redistricting before the 2012 elections but with Maine's filing period beginning on January 1 the year of the election and a 1941 Maine Supreme Judicial Court ruling that you can't pass a law that goes against the current language of the state constitution even conditionally upon the constitution being amended to allow whatever is being done in statutory law, you'd probably have to add the definitions of the new legislative districts into the Maine Constitution, which would probably make the majority of the text of the constitution House and Senate district descriptions.


Looks like the taxpayers of Maine are going to be stuck with another legal bill.
Logged
cinyc
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,721


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: June 17, 2011, 12:56:12 AM »

Oh, I thought you meant that the state would ignore the ruling to redraw its congressional districts, when that would be (well, it probably isn't unprecedented but it would be asking for serious legal trouble) and the Republicans in power probably won't mind redrawing the districts anyway.

Maine's Constitution would seem to bar the state from redrawing its Legislative districts before 2013 unless forced to by a legal challenge.  The constitution could be amended this year to allow for a redistricting before the 2012 elections but with Maine's filing period beginning on January 1 the year of the election and a 1941 Maine Supreme Judicial Court ruling that you can't pass a law that goes against the current language of the state constitution even conditionally upon the constitution being amended to allow whatever is being done in statutory law, you'd probably have to add the definitions of the new legislative districts into the Maine Constitution, which would probably make the majority of the text of the constitution House and Senate district descriptions.

The US Constitution trumps the Maine Constitution, and it is extremely questionable whether a court would allow a 20% variation in one statehouse district stand for 2 years when the data to redraw districts is readily available.  In my opinion, such a large disparity should not stand, even for a relatively short duration - but stranger things have happened.
Logged
Kevinstat
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,823


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: June 17, 2011, 07:05:36 PM »
« Edited: June 25, 2011, 08:55:53 PM by Kevinstat »

Oh, I thought you meant that the state would ignore the ruling to redraw its congressional districts, when that would be (well, it probably isn't unprecedented but it would be asking for serious legal trouble) and the Republicans in power probably won't mind redrawing the districts anyway.

Maine's Constitution would seem to bar the state from redrawing its Legislative districts before 2013 unless forced to by a legal challenge.  The constitution could be amended this year to allow for a redistricting before the 2012 elections but with Maine's filing period beginning on January 1 the year of the election and a 1941 Maine Supreme Judicial Court ruling that you can't pass a law that goes against the current language of the state constitution even conditionally upon the constitution being amended to allow whatever is being done in statutory law, you'd probably have to add the definitions of the new legislative districts into the Maine Constitution, which would probably make the majority of the text of the constitution House and Senate district descriptions.

The US Constitution trumps the Maine Constitution, and it is extremely questionable whether a court would allow a 20% variation in one statehouse district stand for 2 years when the data to redraw districts is readily available.  In my opinion, such a large disparity should not stand, even for a relatively short duration - but stranger things have happened.

What happens if a state passes a statute that is in violation of the state constitution but would seem to be mandated by the U.S. constitution but there hasn't yet been a federal court challenge to the pending U.S. Constitutional violation?  It's tough for me to tell what the appropriate thing for the state to do regarding legislative redistricting at this point is.

A constitutional resolution (LD 494) that I basically drafted to move legislative redistricting after 2013 ahead two years, with an amendment I didn't draft and which I think is kind of sloppy (although I support the concept) to basically add the current congressional and county commissioner redistricting provisions (most notably the 2/3 vote requirement) to the constitution (except of course to move future redistrictings ahead two years as would be done with the legislative redistricting provisions), has been Finally Passed in the House and is currently before the Senate on what's called the "Special Appropriations Table" pending Final Passage there.

I've discussed this earlier on this forum, but just so people don't think I don't take timely redistricting seriously, I'd like to point out LD 211 in 2009 that my then-State Representative put in at my suggestion that would have moved future redistrictings from 2013 and every 10th year thereafter to 2011 (originally drafted by the revisors as 2012; fixed in committee) and every 10th year thereafter.  I had envisioned both in 2009 and 2011 a companion bill moving non-legislative redistricting to the same schedule (I wasn't aware of that pesky 1941 ruling at the time; there's currently nothing in the Maine Constitution on congressional or county commissioner redistricting but those redistrictings use the Apportionment Commission provided for in the constitution and my bill would have kept that use of the Apportionment Commission while changing the years it would meet for congressional and county commissioner redistricting).  If LD 211 had passed and the voters had accepted the constitutional amendment, I'm confident that a law moving congressional, county commissioner and the elected finance/budget committees in those counties that have them redistricting to 2011 and every 10 years thereafter would have sailed through in 2012.  But LD 211 was killed despite having gotten a unanimously favorable report in committee as it would have moved the cost of redistricting to the state into (pegged at $485,000 in the fiscal note) into the fiscal biennium the Legislature was budgeting for at the time.  LD 494, which I expect will be adopted this year in some form, didn't even get a unanimous report in committee; one paranoid first-term House Democrat on the committee voted "Ought Not to Pass" after she learned that I posted to a conservative Maine website and became convinced I had a secret agenda, even though my posts there are almost entirely statistical and analytical like most of my posts here and I actually volunteered a fair amount at the state Democratic HQ in 2008 and 2010.  The congressional lawsuit being launched while the bill was still before the committee and the cold Democratic reaction to it probably didn't help.
Logged
Kevinstat
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,823


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: June 18, 2011, 01:49:21 PM »
« Edited: June 18, 2011, 01:54:40 PM by Kevinstat »

Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Two news articles on the three parties' implementation plans submitted yesterday (except that the one submitted by the state wasn't available at the time of the PPH article and was only discussed by comparison in the other article), one from the Portland Press Herald that makes it look like the plaintiffs are hoping for a Republican gerrymander and one from the Maine Public Broadcasting Network that suggests a bipartisan commission to deal with congressional redistricting is in the awning, and in which the plaintiffs attorney endorses a bipartisan commission "and if the Legislature thinks that's the right way to proceed."  (So basically, "We were hoping for a Republican gerrymander but we're not going to openly oppose a bipartisan commission that at least one our own party's legislative leadership has endorsed.")
Logged
Kevinstat
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,823


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: June 25, 2011, 08:55:00 PM »

Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Full article
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: June 25, 2011, 11:13:06 PM »

Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Full article

The court also issued its written order, in which slammed the Democratic Party, saying that their arguments rested on quicksand, were red herrings, and that the decision that the current districts were unconstitutional was child's play.  And this was before they even started addressing the Democrat's rationale for delay.

When the court issued its oral order on July 9, it asked the plaintiffs (DeSena and Dunham), the defendants (Governor LePage and the legislature), and the intervenors (Maine Democratic Party) to suggest their plans at remediation.

It is settled case law (Growe v Emison) that federal courts should interfere in redistricting efforts only as a last resort.

The Democrats proposed that the federal judges adjust the schedule under Maine law, so that the redistricting commission would be appointed this year.  The plaintiffs appeared to ask that the judges said a detailed schedule.  The defendants wanted pretty much what was ordered, giving the legislature an opportunity to act followed by the Maine Supreme Court if necessary,

The order says that the court "anticipates" the legislature acting by Sept 30, and if they don't, they "anticipate" that the Maine Supreme court will do so by November 15.  In the next sentence, they admit that these are deadlines.  The defendants are also required to report every 20 days, with other parties able to comment, so conceivably the federal court could intervene.

I suspect the legislature and governor are quite happy to have a deadline, since now anything they do is simply to keep the federal court from imposing its plans and to maintain Maine sovereignty.
Logged
Kevinstat
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,823


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: June 26, 2011, 10:15:03 AM »

The court also issued its written order, in which slammed the Democratic Party, saying that their arguments rested on quicksand, were red herrings, and that the decision that the current districts were unconstitutional was child's play.  And this was before they even started addressing the Democrat's rationale for delay.

I expected the Democrats to be chastised, although I wasn't sure it would be as bad as it was.  In "League of Women Voters of Maine v. Gwadosky" (which struck down Maine's "Scarlet Letter Law" passed by citizen initiative in 1996 that would have written "VIOLATED VOTER INSTRUCTION ON TERM LIMITS" as part of the listings of incumbent members of Congress or the Legislature on the ballot who didn't vote in favor of a specifically worded application for a congressional term limits amendment or that amendment itself if in Congress, or didn't propose such an application or amendment if no one else did, or "REFUSED [I forget what exactly but similarly not flattering]" for non-incumbent candidates who refused to pledge to support such an application or amendment), the district judge (this didn't go to a three-judge court) wrote that the Intervenor Defendents' (U.S. Term Limits, the On Our Terms-Campaign Committee (perhaps the Maine group behind the challenged citizen initiative) and two ex-Democratic current or former State Representatives from Auburn (one of whom ran for Governor in 2002 and used the n-word on a radio show to describe how he was being "put in his place" - he's white, btw)) argument that "the Act is not coercive but rather provides non-binding instructions from Maine's voters to their legislators... raises naivete to new heights."  But they weren't slammed as much as the Democrats were.  Unlike in this case the State actually tried to defend the challenged law.

Technically though, what the court said was "child's play" was the plaintiffs' showing that the disparity in the two congressional district's populations "was not "unavoidable despite a good-faith effort to achieve absolute equality"", not the decision that the current districts were unconstitutional (not that the court would have disagreed with your statement).  The court was not at all appologetic about rejecting the Democrats' argument that (as the court put the Democrats' arguement) "the policies supporting Maine's carefully constructed redistricting process, laudably designed to prevent partisan gerrymandering, are worthy of deference and, therefore, justify the state in using the 2010 census figures more deliberately in revamping its congressional district lines (with the result that reapportionment will be delayed until after the 2012 election)" and didn't themselves conceed that the designs of Maine's provisions were laudible, but they weren't as savage toward the Democrats there as they were with the various defenses of such a large deviation as Maine's in general, like how large Montana's at-large congressional district was (I gawked when I first saw that in a Democratic brief) and the several cases (regarding legislative districts all) in which larger deviations than those of Maine's congressional districts had been upheld.
Logged
Kevinstat
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,823


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: June 26, 2011, 02:43:07 PM »

Links to the two recent orders:

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (basically the court's "Opinion" regarding the "liability phase" of the case, ruling that Maine's congressional districts have to be drawn before the 2012 elections)

ORDER REGARDING PLAN FOR REDISTRICTING
Logged
Kevinstat
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,823


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #44 on: June 26, 2011, 03:19:59 PM »

The order says that the court "anticipates" the legislature acting by Sept 30, and if they don't, they "anticipate" that the Maine Supreme court will do so by November 15.  In the next sentence, they admit that these are deadlines.  The defendants are also required to report every 20 days, with other parties able to comment, so conceivably the federal court could intervene.

I'm not sure when the three-judge court says, "To the extent that the Maine Supreme Judicial Court plays any role in the redistricting for the 2012 congressional election, the Court anticipates the Maine Supreme Judicial Court will complete its work no later than November 15, 2011," that they are saying that the Maine Supreme Court would necessarily have any role in the event that no plan is passed by the Legislature by September 30, 2011. If no specific law or order was passed making the Maine Supreme Judicial Court the backup in 2011 and the Legislature failed to meet it's September 30 deadline, then I think the federal three-judge court might determine its deadlines to have not been met and thus "proceed with its own reapportionment of Maine’s congressional districts in order to cure the Constitutional violation prior to January 1, 2012" (from the text of the second order linked to in my last post).

I suspect the legislature and governor are quite happy to have a deadline, since now anything they do is simply to keep the federal court from imposing its plans and to maintain Maine sovereignty.

Yeah, I think they're happy with the result too.  So far though, signs point to an attempt at a bipartisan solution rather than a Republican gerrymender.  The court rulings and the lack of a state constitutional 2/3 rule (or any 2/3 rule specifically for 2011) does give the Republicans that opportunity though.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #45 on: June 27, 2011, 05:26:21 PM »

The order says that the court "anticipates" the legislature acting by Sept 30, and if they don't, they "anticipate" that the Maine Supreme court will do so by November 15.  In the next sentence, they admit that these are deadlines.  The defendants are also required to report every 20 days, with other parties able to comment, so conceivably the federal court could intervene.

I'm not sure when the three-judge court says, "To the extent that the Maine Supreme Judicial Court plays any role in the redistricting for the 2012 congressional election, the Court anticipates the Maine Supreme Judicial Court will complete its work no later than November 15, 2011," that they are saying that the Maine Supreme Court would necessarily have any role in the event that no plan is passed by the Legislature by September 30, 2011. If no specific law or order was passed making the Maine Supreme Judicial Court the backup in 2011 and the Legislature failed to meet it's September 30 deadline, then I think the federal three-judge court might determine its deadlines to have not been met and thus "proceed with its own reapportionment of Maine’s congressional districts in order to cure the Constitutional violation prior to January 1, 2012" (from the text of the second order linked to in my last post).

I suspect the legislature and governor are quite happy to have a deadline, since now anything they do is simply to keep the federal court from imposing its plans and to maintain Maine sovereignty.

Yeah, I think they're happy with the result too.  So far though, signs point to an attempt at a bipartisan solution rather than a Republican gerrymender.  The court rulings and the lack of a state constitutional 2/3 rule (or any 2/3 rule specifically for 2011) does give the Republicans that opportunity though.

Under the US Constitution, State legislatures are responsible for providing the time, place, and manner of congressional elections subject to override by Congress.

Congress has set the time and requires election from districts.  There are other procedural requirements such as those for voting machines, campaign finance, military and overseas voters, and the VRA, but we can ignore those.  The Supreme Court has interpreted the congressional requirement for districts and the constitutional specification that representatives be chosen by the people of the States to mean that districts must be equipopulous to a high level of precision.

So all the federal court cares about is that Maine conducts its 2012 elections with two equal population districts.  It doesn't really care about how the Maine legislature actually creates the two districts.  It also accepts without question the filing deadline for the 2012 election (ie it is Maine's decision to have filing for the November 2012 election in January, so that is when the districts have to be defined.)

The Democratic Party tried to interpret the decision as meaning that the court had found the redistricting procedure unconstitutional because of its schedule (they argued in succession: (1) the deviation is not so bad; (2) we plan to fix it 2 years from now; (3) since you don't like the schedule, adjust the schedule).  The court ruled: (1) the deviation is too much; (2) we don't care what you plan to do two years from now; and (3) you obviously didn't understand (1) and (2).  It is possible that the 2003 process is still valid, depending on how it is written.  Though the legislature could change it before then.  For example, they could redistrict this year, and change the current statutory process to be used in 2021.

Presumably, the Maine judiciary has authority to oversee any legislation or the legislative process to ensure it complies with the Maine and US constitutions.  So the federal court is interpreting "legislature" to mean the "legislative process", including the governor (veto power), and judiciary (legal review).  If the federal court had set a November deadline for the legislature, then it would have interfered with the Maine judicial branch by not giving them time to act.  If the legislature fails to create lawful districts, I suspect that the Maine supreme court does have the authority to do so.

In 2001 in Texas, the federal district court and state district court held joint hearings on the congressional map.  The legislature had failed to draw a map in the 2001 regular session, and it was apparent that a special session would not be called.  The state court drew a plan, but then-Speaker Laney said he wanted to have the judge make a few changes.  The judge said that the good map was not his final order.  His final map made rather major changes, and the Texas Supreme Court ruled that the state district court had violated due process.  It was only then that the federal district court took over.

So the Maine courts can review the legislative actions and perhaps draw the map if the legislature fails to do so.  The Maine courts probably can be more creative.  The federal court is limited to make the minimal changes necessary, which would probably amount to moving a town or two.  In so doing, they would be respecting the last clearly expressed Maine legislative intent.  I suppose that if the Maine legislature did a major revamp, and it was challenged on grounds of population equality, they could work off that map.  For example, if the legislature were to split a town, they would be required to make the districts equal.  
Logged
Kevinstat
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,823


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #46 on: June 29, 2011, 08:10:26 PM »
« Edited: June 29, 2011, 08:19:51 PM by Kevinstat »

It looks like LD 494 (the resolution, not the constitutional amendment therin which will go before the voters in November) is now law, or is just awaiting receipt by the Office of the Secretary of State (which is what happens with constitutional resolutions that have been passed; the Governor Action section in the bill's status summary will say "Received in the Office of the Secretary of State (Governor's Signature Not Required)" (example from 2009; that constitutional amendment was rejected by the voters)).

LD 494 passed with a floor amendment, House Amendment "B", that basically added the current statutory provisions for congressional and county commissioner redistricting (moved from years ending in '3' to years ending in '1' like LD 494 already did for legislative redistricting) to the Maine Constitution.  This includes a 2/3 vote requirement in both chambers to pass a redistricting plan, in the absence of which the Maine Supreme Judicial Court shall make the apportionment.

It is possible that the 2003 process is still valid, depending on how it is written.  Though the legislature could change it before then.  For example, they could redistrict this year, and change the current statutory process to be used in 2021.  

With congressional and county commissioner redistricting, however, rather than provide for redistricting in 2013 and then in 2021 and every 10 years thereafter like it would for legislative redistricting, the constitutional amendment proposed to the voters by the resolution as passed adds provisions that read "Beginning in 2021 and every 10 years thereafter," and then go on to describe the redistricting process.  I'm not sure if these additions would be construed to prohibit congressional redistricting between the time the constitutional amendment is adopted (if is is adopted, by which time new congressional districts will likely have been drawn pursuent to the three-judge court's order in Desesa et al v. State of Maine et al) and 2021.  But I've heard it said that our current constitutional provisions providing for the redrawing of legislative districts during "the Legislature which convenes in 1983 and every 10th year thereafter" (House) or "Legislature which shall convene in the year 1983 and every tenth year thereafter" (Senate) prohibit at least a general redraw of those districts in years not ending in '3'.  (There were some minor changes to House and Senate districts in 1995 I think, and in 2003 or 2004 but after a state House district plan was passed and signed there was an amendment to change the House district lines in Waterville so a Colby College dorm (singular) wouldn't be divided between House districts; the block they moved was actually quite sizable; a smaller block near the center of town was moved the other way.)  Perhaps the word "Beginning" could be interpreted to mean that the new constitutional congressional and county commissioner redistricting provisions don't apply before 2021, but the paragaph before the paragraphs beginning with "Beginning" reads (after the section title), "{Congressional, County commissioner} districts must be reapportioned as follows."  Even the current legislative redistricting provisions (and the legislative redistricting provisions as LD 494 would amend them) don't contain such a preamble.

So the adoption of this constitutional amendment by the voters this November could fix whatever congressional district lines are drawn this year in place through the 2020 elections, where under current Maine statute (which could be amended but could be amended back or "notwithstood" later) the existing lines would be reviewed in 2013, although that section only says that the apportionment commission shall reapportion the state into congressional districts "if the districts do not conform to Supreme Judicial Court guidelines," which the congressional districts drawn this year presumably will.  And there's no constitutional 2/3 requirement, and arguable no statutorory 2/3 requirement governing the coming 2011 court-ordered congressional redistricting which this constutional amendment would arguably enshrine until 2021.  The joint order to create a bipartisan congressional redistricting commission passed both houses today, but there's nothing stopping the Republicans from passing a plan with a simple majority when the Legislature has a special session to take up redistricting.

For county commissioner redistricting, the proposed state constutitional language is similar regarding the timing of redistricting, but unlike Maine's congressional districts I see no signs of Maine's county commissioner districts being redrawn this year.  Some counties' commissioner districts are going to have to be drawn before 2021 under federal court guidelines (even if the standard there is only that states must redraw the lines every 10 years based on a census that was the most recent one of its kind at the time the lines were drawn, Maine's county commissioner districts haven't been redrawn since 2003, and I know the difference in population between the largest and smallest districts in Kennebec County is more than 10% of the ideal district population which is the general standard for non-congressional redistricting, above which the burden of proof in an equal protection court challenge rests with the apportioning body (in Maine's case the state of Maine).  The word "Beginning" in the new provisions should the constitutional amendment be adopted) combined with federal court standards might result in the current Maine statutes governing county commissioner redistricting, which provide for redistricting in 1983 and every 10 years thereafter, prevailing until 2021 without the need for litigation.  It is a bit of a mess though.

I pretty much wrote the original draft of LD 494 (which the favorable majority committee report didn't change), but I never followed through with a promise to whip up text for an amendment to add congressional and county commissioner redistricting provisions (including the 2/3 rule) into the Maine Constitution until after the House Amendment "B" (and the earlier House Amendment "A" that House Amendment "B" was a slight cleanup of) had been drafted, and by the time I e-mailed it to my two legislators and someone else I had been discussing the bill with things were moving on a pace, and when my State Representative, the sponsor of the bill, told me last Thursday that the Revisor's Office had given their okay to the bill as engrossed (by that time the only remaining step was "Final Passage" in the Senate in concurrence with the House) I gave the bill my blessing.  I've had some second thoughts about that since then, but I still plan to support it unless the Republicans pass a really rediculous congressional plan this year, in which case I might somewhat actively campaign against it (I had envisioned actively campaigning for the amendment until a couple days ago when the full extent of the potential consequences of House Amendment "B" hit me.)

Some of the deadlines in the proposed constitutional provisions for county commissioner redistriciting are also inconsistent with each other and with the proposed constitutional deadlines for legislative and congressional redistricting, but that might not pose a big problem as the constitutional and statutory deadlines for the redrawing of all three types of districts have some inconsistencies and that didn't seem to create much of a hassle in 2003.
Logged
JohnnyLongtorso
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,798


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #47 on: June 29, 2011, 08:50:21 PM »

So they passed the 2/3rds requirement for next time (when the Democrats will probably have control of the legislature again) but don't have to follow it this time?
Logged
Kevinstat
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,823


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #48 on: June 29, 2011, 10:45:08 PM »
« Edited: June 29, 2011, 10:50:22 PM by Kevinstat »

So they passed the 2/3rds requirement for next time (when the Democrats will probably have control of the legislature again) but don't have to follow it this time?

Yes, and necessarily by a 2/3 margin as it is a constitutional amendment resolution.  In otherwords, the first part of what you wrote above (and the implied prohibition on redistricting between 2011 and 2021) couldn't have gone through without Democratic support in each chamber.  There were no roll calls but the divisions on final passage were 132-7 in the House (so 11 Representatives absent or excused with 1 vacancy) and 34-0 in the Senate (so 1 Senator absent or excused).

I tried to point that out to Janet Mills, the Vice Chair of the Maine Democratic Party (also the previous Attorney General and the attorney who represented the Democrats in the lawsuit), whom I have had a sporadic e-mail correspondence with going back to when the lawsuit was first announced.  She questioned me about the deadlines in House Amendment "A", thinking I might have written it, and I replied that I was surprised the wasn't more concerned about the "Beginning in 2021" part.  A couple days later, she posted me a link to House Amendment "B" and when I asked if she had anything to do with it she said that she had mentioned to my State Representative (a Republican) in the hallway (presumably of the State House) "that the earlier floor amendment was not consistent with the timeline in the underlying bill."  The next week, a couple weeks ago, after the bill had been finally passed in the House and just needed appropriations committee (for the potential referendum costs, presumably, as the moveup in redistricting isn't until 2021) and final Senate approval, I forwarded her a copy of an e-mail I had sent to my two Legislators and my Republican cyberfriend I mentioned earlier in this thread who now works in the Governor's office that had my proposed amendment to the resolution attached.  In that e-mail to Janet Mills, I wrote the following, with italics added here (not in the e-mail) for emphasis:

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

I haven't heard back from her since then.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #49 on: June 30, 2011, 06:42:43 AM »

I don't understand the process.   Did the two chambers engross different versions of LD 494 in April, and then came along in June and pass different versions?   Are there ever record votes in the legislature, even for proposed constitutional amendments?

There is always the issue whether a state constitution may bind action by a legislature with regard to congressional districts.  This is under current litigation in Florida.  The Supreme Court precedents are where a constitution provided a role for the governor (through the veto power) or the people (through the referendum) in the legislative process.

What are the Supreme Judicial Court guidelines for congressional districts?  Could they conceivably include that they had been recommended by the apportionment commission or an alternative approved by 2/3 majority?

How is the fewest lines crossed provision interpreted?

Plan 1:

A B B
A B B
A A

Plan 2:

A A B
A B B
A B

Is Plan 2 preferred because 6 boundaries are crossed vs.  7 under Plan 1?
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.077 seconds with 11 queries.