What states allow mid-decade redistricting?

[David Hume]

In Pennsylvania redoing the legislative lines without court order is prohibited but surprisingly there's nothing similar for the congressional lines.

Same thing goes for New Hampshire actually.

I guess this is a normal thing actually according to redistricting.lls.edu;  Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Texas, and Wisconsin all have the same policy - State Legislative mid-decade redistricting isn't allowed (without court order), Congressional mid-decade redistricting is allowed.

It would seem Minnesota does actually ban both the redrawing of Legislative and Congressional lines mid-decade, but it seems this isn't all that clear and probably has never been attempted-

Minnesota ties the drawing of congressional and state legislative lines to the Census, and might therefore be construed to prohibit redrawing lines mid-decade. [Minn. Const. art. IV, § 3]

https://redistricting.lls.edu/state/minnesota/?cycle=2020&level=Congress&startdate=2022-02-15

Those are probably all the non-commission states besides the ones listed in the OP that could flip this decade to a new trifecta.

Sec. 3. Census enumeration apportionment; congressional and legislative district boundaries; senate districts.At its first session after each enumeration of the inhabitants of this state made by the authority of the United States, the legislature shall have the power to prescribe the bounds of congressional and legislative districts.

This basically says the legislature have the power to redistrict after the census, but did not say it can only do it then. Just like the SC ruling that states can redistrict whenever they want but has to do it once every ten years.

[David Hume]

List I know do:

Georgia
North Carolina
Ohio (sorta, the current map only lasts 4 years but also a full commission via ballot initiatives could also redraw
Texas, but basically everyone in state government needs to sign off on it. If Rs feel their majorities are at risk they could redraw

The reason I ask is because there’s a good chance certain states partisan control will flip and also that if a gerrymander starts to backfire, the majority can just redraw as needed.

Same with PA. In the court order this year, it is quite clear that the map is applicable till the legislature passes a statue that redraws the lines.

[David Hume]

[quote author=Skill and Chance link=topic=522472.msg8778412#msg8778412
I think Congress can still override even under the strictest form of ISL where governors can't veto and voter initiatives pertaining to federal elections are invalid?  For example, Congress has set the date on which federal elections will be held.  I don't think a state could just unilaterally move it to the summer or something. 

In practice, the more likely outcome is a limited ISL where state courts can't intervene based on vague, general language, but can intervene if the issue is spelled out in the state constitution.  This would preserve commissions and voter initiatives and gubernatorial vetoes, but it would block state courts from using a state constitutional guarantee of free elections or free expression or equal protection to strike down a map. 

That would also conveniently preserve the court map in NY and the commissions on the West Coast while giving free reign back to the legislatures in NC and PA (if Mastriano wins).  I think the MD decision was also based on general language, so presumably that would also go back to the legislature, but in practice, the MD map is small potatoes. 
[/quote]

How could SC tell state courts how to interpret what "free elections" mean in their constitution?  Do you think SC can tell state courts that state constitutions and statues should be interpreted as the original public meaning or strict textual meaning?

[David Hume]

[quote author=Skill and Chance link=topic=522472.msg8778412#msg8778412
I think Congress can still override even under the strictest form of ISL where governors can't veto and voter initiatives pertaining to federal elections are invalid?  For example, Congress has set the date on which federal elections will be held.  I don't think a state could just unilaterally move it to the summer or something. 

In practice, the more likely outcome is a limited ISL where state courts can't intervene based on vague, general language, but can intervene if the issue is spelled out in the state constitution.  This would preserve commissions and voter initiatives and gubernatorial vetoes, but it would block state courts from using a state constitutional guarantee of free elections or free expression or equal protection to strike down a map. 

That would also conveniently preserve the court map in NY and the commissions on the West Coast while giving free reign back to the legislatures in NC and PA (if Mastriano wins).  I think the MD decision was also based on general language, so presumably that would also go back to the legislature, but in practice, the MD map is small potatoes. 

How could SC tell state courts how to interpret what "free elections" mean in their constitution?  Do you think SC can tell state courts that state constitutions and statues should be interpreted as the original public meaning or strict textual meaning?

They could use ISL to say that the default will be it's up to the legislature (subject to federal law and review by federal courts and most likely to the governor's veto and a referendum if the state allows it) unless there is something specifically written in the state constitution or a state law that authorizes someone else to intervene.  The idea would be that the legislature consented to it.
[/quote]

I guess they might say that if the state legislature approved the measure to appear on ballot, or they just pass a law to create a redistricting commission, it would be fine. This means commissions in MT, IA, NY, NJ, VA, WA, CO will stay, while CA, AZ, MI will not.

But when it comes to state constitution, it becomes tricky. If a ballot measure without legislative approval dictates that redistricting should be proportional for partisan fairness, what will happen?

[David Hume]

[quote author=Skill and Chance link=topic=522472.msg8778412#msg8778412
I think Congress can still override even under the strictest form of ISL where governors can't veto and voter initiatives pertaining to federal elections are invalid?  For example, Congress has set the date on which federal elections will be held.  I don't think a state could just unilaterally move it to the summer or something. 

In practice, the more likely outcome is a limited ISL where state courts can't intervene based on vague, general language, but can intervene if the issue is spelled out in the state constitution.  This would preserve commissions and voter initiatives and gubernatorial vetoes, but it would block state courts from using a state constitutional guarantee of free elections or free expression or equal protection to strike down a map. 

That would also conveniently preserve the court map in NY and the commissions on the West Coast while giving free reign back to the legislatures in NC and PA (if Mastriano wins).  I think the MD decision was also based on general language, so presumably that would also go back to the legislature, but in practice, the MD map is small potatoes. 

How could SC tell state courts how to interpret what "free elections" mean in their constitution?  Do you think SC can tell state courts that state constitutions and statues should be interpreted as the original public meaning or strict textual meaning?

They could use ISL to say that the default will be it's up to the legislature (subject to federal law and review by federal courts and most likely to the governor's veto and a referendum if the state allows it) unless there is something specifically written in the state constitution or a state law that authorizes someone else to intervene.  The idea would be that the legislature consented to it.

I guess they might say that if the state legislature approved the measure to appear on ballot, or they just pass a law to create a redistricting commission, it would be fine. This means commissions in MT, IA, NY, NJ, VA, WA, CO will stay, while CA, AZ, MI will not.

But when it comes to state constitution, it becomes tricky. If a ballot measure without legislative approval dictates that redistricting should be proportional for partisan fairness, what will happen?

The argument would likely be that the legislature "consented" when it put forth a constitutional amendment to create the initiative/referendum process. 

In the case of a state that had the initiative/referendum in the original state constitution from day 1 (this is the case for several late-arriving Western states), this is dicier, but the argument could be that Congress "consented" to it when it reviewed the proposed state constitution and admitted the state.  Congress did have a history of reviewing and rejecting proposed state constitutional provisions it disapproved of, such as clauses banning or protecting slavery.  They also required the adoption of a polygamy ban in the Utah constitution as a condition of admission.

The history here is heavily in favor of the initiative being able to modify federal election rules.  Arizona was admitted with an initiative process in its constitution from day 1, and the very first initiative was women's suffrage. 
[/quote]
But congressional approval doesn't means state legislature approval. Based on your theory, even the process that state courts striking down gerrymander can be understood as legislature consent or congressional approval.