Tea Party sues for "right" to redistrict Kentucky themselves

[Bandit3 the Worker]

I swear I am not making this up...

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

[Antonio the Sixth]

I agree that districts should be as equally sized as possible. If the map fails to do that, then it should be thrown out, regardless of what party benefits from that.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

I agree that districts should be as equally sized as possible. If the map fails to do that, then it should be thrown out, regardless of what party benefits from that.

The problem here is that the Tea Party wants to draw the map themselves.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I agree that districts should be as equally sized as possible. If the map fails to do that, then it should be thrown out, regardless of what party benefits from that.

The problem here is that the Tea Party wants to draw the map themselves.

Well, the Courts will certainly not grant them that.

[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.

[muon2]

I agree that districts should be as equally sized as possible. If the map fails to do that, then it should be thrown out, regardless of what party benefits from that.

The problem here is that the Tea Party wants to draw the map themselves.

Well, the Courts will certainly not grant them that.

As jimrtex has laid out this is a pretty normal case that happens when the two chambers can't agree on a new map. It is also not unusual for the court to use a plaintiff's map if that meets the requirements for a valid map and the defendants have not provided a better alternative. So, the court could well grant them that.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

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.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I agree that districts should be as equally sized as possible. If the map fails to do that, then it should be thrown out, regardless of what party benefits from that.

Equally as possible can be taken to ridiculous extremes tho.  Just take as look at the maps drawn in South Carolina.  Numerous split precincts done allegedly to make the districts exactly equal, which they are, but also to gerrymander to the nth degree.

[muon2]

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.

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.

As an example look at the congressional map battle in IL in the 90's. The R's sued for lack of a map that passed the legislature and provided a map that they drew. The D's offered an alternative map that was not as good at creating a Latino majority district, nor as equal in population, nor any better at preserving any communities of interest. The judge decided against appointing a special master and selected the R map for the state.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

As an example look at the congressional map battle in IL in the 90's. The R's sued for lack of a map that passed the legislature and provided a map that they drew. The D's offered an alternative map that was not as good at creating a Latino majority district, nor as equal in population, nor any better at preserving any communities of interest. The judge decided against appointing a special master and selected the R map for the state.

Then that judge must have been some Republican hack.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I agree that districts should be as equally sized as possible. If the map fails to do that, then it should be thrown out, regardless of what party benefits from that.

Equally as possible can be taken to ridiculous extremes tho.  Just take as look at the maps drawn in South Carolina.  Numerous split precincts done allegedly to make the districts exactly equal, which they are, but also to gerrymander to the nth degree.

Yeah, of course there are some limits to that. I'd say a 1% variation would be fine.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I agree that districts should be as equally sized as possible. If the map fails to do that, then it should be thrown out, regardless of what party benefits from that.

That New York State Senate map that DINO Cuomo signed into law certainly has some population deviation issues.

[muon2]

I agree that districts should be as equally sized as possible. If the map fails to do that, then it should be thrown out, regardless of what party benefits from that.

That New York State Senate map that DINO Cuomo signed into law certainly has some population deviation issues.

But at least NY passed something that could be signed. KY hasn't even done that, hence a suit.

[cinyc]

That New York State Senate map that DINO Cuomo signed into law certainly has some population deviation issues.

None of the New York Senate (or Assembly, for that matter) districts had a deviation of more than 10%.  It is well within the safe harbor of permitted deviation.  Kentucky's old map isn't within the safe harbor after the 2010 census.

[Antonio the Sixth]

That New York State Senate map that DINO Cuomo signed into law certainly has some population deviation issues.

None of the New York Senate (or Assembly, for that matter) districts had a deviation of more than 10%.  It is well within the safe harbor of permitted deviation.  Kentucky's old map isn't within the safe harbor after the 2010 census.

10% is a ridiculously wide margin to have though. And NYGOPers used it systematically in favor of conservative districts.

[muon2]

That New York State Senate map that DINO Cuomo signed into law certainly has some population deviation issues.

None of the New York Senate (or Assembly, for that matter) districts had a deviation of more than 10%.  It is well within the safe harbor of permitted deviation.  Kentucky's old map isn't within the safe harbor after the 2010 census.

But SCOTUS has held that partisan gerrymandering within the broad guidelines cannot be decided against by the court. They've left the door open for someone to create a rational basis for a ruling against partisan gerrymandering, but no one has presented such a rationale yet.
10% is a ridiculously wide margin to have though. And NYGOPers used it systematically in favor of conservative districts.

[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.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

That New York State Senate map that DINO Cuomo signed into law certainly has some population deviation issues.

None of the New York Senate (or Assembly, for that matter) districts had a deviation of more than 10%.  It is well within the safe harbor of permitted deviation.  Kentucky's old map isn't within the safe harbor after the 2010 census.

But SCOTUS has held that partisan gerrymandering within the broad guidelines cannot be decided against by the court. They've left the door open for someone to create a rational basis for a ruling against partisan gerrymandering, but no one has presented such a rationale yet.
10% is a ridiculously wide margin to have though. And NYGOPers used it systematically in favor of conservative districts.

Are you saying it would be OK if Illinois decided to use a 10% margin instead of the 0% that it uses?

[muon2]

That New York State Senate map that DINO Cuomo signed into law certainly has some population deviation issues.

None of the New York Senate (or Assembly, for that matter) districts had a deviation of more than 10%.  It is well within the safe harbor of permitted deviation.  Kentucky's old map isn't within the safe harbor after the 2010 census.

But SCOTUS has held that partisan gerrymandering within the broad guidelines cannot be decided against by the court. They've left the door open for someone to create a rational basis for a ruling against partisan gerrymandering, but no one has presented such a rationale yet.
10% is a ridiculously wide margin to have though. And NYGOPers used it systematically in favor of conservative districts.

Are you saying it would be OK if Illinois decided to use a 10% margin instead of the 0% that it uses?

The IL Supremes have held that a variance of 0.5% (1% range) is the maximum consistent with their interpretation of the state constitution. So 10% would not be OK for Congress or legislative districts. A 10% range could be used for small units of local government.

The 0% margin was used in the last two cycles for legislative districts to avoid a gerrymandering challenge that used population equality as an avenue of attack. A recent suit filed against the Chicago ward map (10% range) makes a population equality argument to attack the gerrymandered map.

[BigSkyBob]

I agree that districts should be as equally sized as possible. If the map fails to do that, then it should be thrown out, regardless of what party benefits from that.

The problem here is that the Tea Party wants to draw the map themselves.

Just about every such litigant offers the court a fallback plan. Feel free to file any alternate fallback plan to the court you see fit.

[BigSkyBob]

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.

The pleading, also, takes issue with the one-year residency requirement. One of the historic options of a sitting member being gerrymandered into an untenable district has been to move to a nearby district and run there. That wouldn't be possible if the one-year residency requirement applied to incumbents during a redistricting year [assuming the final maps aren't set one year prior to an election.] Often, such incumbents are granted a waiver that year allowing them to move to run. Somehow, such waivers never seem to apply to anyone else. Thus, we could see the spector of a some incumbent threatened by the potential candidacy of his neighbor gerrymander both himself and his neighbor out of his district so that he could move across the street to run, while his neighbor could not. That is a real equal protection under the law issue.


Nor, is anything effectively preventing the sitting members from knowing exactly what their districts will be before the one-year deadline while keeping that information under wraps for any potential opponent.

[Antonio the Sixth]

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).

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

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).

Define "the best".

[Antonio the Sixth]

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).

Define "the best".

Least population variation with reasonably compact districts and no pronounced partisan bias.

Though I understand other people might have different definitions. As long as it's not "the map that best suits my party"...