Latest news with #VotingRightsAct
Yahoo
2 days ago
- General
- Yahoo
North Dakota tribes ask circuit judges for rehearing of voting rights case
Jamie Azure, chair of the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa, speaks during the Tribal Leaders Summit in Bismarck on Sept. 4, 2024. Turtle Mountain, Spirit Lake Nation and three tribal citizens are challenging a ruling in a voting rights case. (Michael Achterling/North Dakota Monitor) The Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa, Spirit Lake Nation and three tribal citizens this week asked the full 8th Circuit Court of Appeals to review a three-judge panel's finding that they lack standing to bring a voting discrimination case against the state of North Dakota. In a 2-1 decision earlier this month, the panel overruled a North Dakota federal district court's decision that a redistricting plan adopted by the state in 2021 diluted the voting power of Native voters. 'Turtle Mountain fought hard for a fair and legal map. When the state draws unlawful districts, Courts must step in to protect voters — not pave the way for injustice,' Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Chairman Jamie Azure said in a statement published by the Campaign Legal Center, one of the organizations representing the plaintiffs in the suit. 'We will continue to fight for fair representation.' Appeals court rules against North Dakota tribes in voting rights case The panel's decision didn't speak to whether the map itself was discriminatory; instead, the judges found that private individuals cannot use a key federal civil rights law as a vehicle to file cases under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which outlaws race-based voting discrimination. The panel in its ruling sent the case back to North Dakota U.S. District Judge Peter Welte with instructions to dismiss the lawsuit. If its ruling stands, North Dakota would revert back to the 2021 map. But if the plaintiffs' request for an en banc rehearing is granted, the case would go before all 11 judges on the 8th Circuit for review. 'Section 2 is the foundational statute that Congress enacted to fight the scourge of racial discrimination in voting, but citizens in this circuit can no longer enforce the right it provides them,' the plaintiffs argue in a brief urging the full appellate court to consider the case. Private individuals and groups previously could file discrimination lawsuits against governments under just Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act without having to invoke Section 1983, a separate civil rights statute. Then, the 8th Circuit in a controversial 2023 ruling on an Arkansas voting rights case found that Section 2 alone doesn't give private parties the right to sue. Instead, the circuit declared that it is the responsibility of the U.S. Attorney General to file Section 2 discrimination cases. Tribes, state argue redistricting case to federal appeals court For more than a year, the question remained open as to whether Section 1983 offered a viable alternative for bringing such Voting Rights Act claims. In a May 14 ruling, the three-judge panel decided it does not. In a majority opinion, the panel wrote that the language of the Voting Rights Act indicates that Congress didn't intend for citizens to file race discrimination claims through Section 1983. The lone dissenting judge on the panel — Chief Judge Steven Colloton — noted in his opinion that private plaintiffs have brought more than 400 actions under Section 2 since 1982. The plaintiffs in their brief point out that the 8th Circuit is the only appellate circuit in the country to rule that Section 2 cannot be enforced through lawsuits brought by private citizens. The circuit includes North Dakota, South Dakota, Minnesota, Iowa, Illinois, Missouri, Nebraska and Arkansas. 'Outside of this circuit, every American citizen can rely on an unbroken line of Supreme Court and circuit precedent to enforce the individual rights given to them by Congress in the Voting Rights Act,' their filing states. 'But as a result of the panel decision here, and the prior decision in Arkansas, American citizens in this circuit are denied that right.' The lawsuit was triggered by a redistricting plan adopted by the North Dakota Legislature in 2021 that placed the Turtle Mountain and Spirit Lake reservations in new districts. U.S. District Court Judge Peter Welte in 2023 ruled that the new map was discriminatory and ordered the Legislature to implement a new map that placed the reservations in the same voting district. Three Native American lawmakers from that district were elected in 2024: Sen. Richard Marcellais and Rep. Jayme Davis — both citizens of the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa — and Rep. Collette Brown, a citizen of the Spirit Lake Nation and plaintiff in the lawsuit. 'The fair map we secured led to a historic first — a Spirit Lake Nation member elected to the North Dakota Legislature,' Spirit Lake Nation Chairperson Lonna Jackson-Street said in a Wednesday statement published by the Campaign Legal Center, one of the organizations representing the plaintiffs in the case. 'This decision threatens that progress and weakens our voice in state government.' Marcellais had previously served 15 years in the statehouse until he lost his bid for reelection in 2022. He was reelected in 2024. Davis was first elected in 2022, then reelected last year. If the 2021 map is reinstated, three state lawmakers would move to different districts, according to the North Dakota Secretary of State's Office. Rep. Colette Brown, D-Warwick, would go from representing District 9 to District 15. Rep. Donna Henderson, R-Calvin, would switch from District 15 to District 9B, while Sen. Kent Weston, R-Sarles, would switch from District 15 to District 9. They would all have to seek reelection in 2026. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
2 days ago
- General
- Yahoo
SMU researcher says proposed Tarrant County redistricting 'diminishes' voting power
The Brief Tarrant County commissioners are set to vote on new district maps within days, a process led by Republican County Judge Tim O'Hare. Critics say the proposed maps violate racial protections in the Voting Rights Act by concentrating non-White voters into one district, diluting their voting power. An SMU researcher's analysis appears to suggest the new maps may be biased against non-White voters. TARRANT COUNTY, Texas - The Republican-led Tarrant County Commissioners Court is days away from voting to redraw district lines. Critics say the proposed maps violate racial protections in the Voting Rights Act. Now, an SMU researcher is applying her own mathematical review to the maps. The Latest SMU mathematics professor and researcher Dr. Andrea Barreiro has dissected and analyzed the newly proposed maps for Tarrant County districts, the work of a county-hired consulting firm and the public legal interest foundation. The researcher uses mathematics and technology to analyze the redistricting models. She says she was drawn to Tarrant County's current process as attention surrounding the topic began to grow. Barreiro looks for signatures of partisan and racial gerrymandering, she says. The current process to redraw the county's lines is led by Republican County Judge Tim O'Hare. At the center of the controversy are District 1, held by Commissioner Roderick Miles, and District 2, a seat now held by Commissioner Alisa Simmons, both Democrats. What they're saying "It looks like they made small modifications on this basic template where they swap the purple and the blue to get their desired outcome," Barreiro said. Barreiro says a randomly unbiased generated map based on the latest census data would have 60 to 65 percent non-White voters in each of those districts. "The proposed maps do something very different," Barreiro said. "They take a lot of those non-White voters in District 2, and they pack them into District 1, leaving District 2 to be majority White." Barreiro uses advanced software, applying a method known as Markov Chain Analysis. Her experience using the same technology includes similar analysis her team prepared during the state legislative redistricting cycle. "We have continued to reach out to Judge O'Hare for his response to allegations of racial gerrymandering by Simmons, Miles, as well as U.S. Congressman Marc Veasey and ten Tarrant County mayors," Barreiro said. Barreiro stops short of making a legal opinion on whether the proposed maps violate state and federal law. She does say it is clear what the consultant map-maker's mission is. "If black voters could be a large presence in two districts, but instead you pack all those people by picking your map cleverly, you get all those people into one district, then you diminish the voting power of that population," Barreiro said. "There are interesting methodological and mathematical questions about this whole process that I'm eager to explore, and I'm also just interested in basic fairness." What's next Late Thursday afternoon, O'Hare agreed to an interview with FOX 4. The meeting is set for Friday morning. A vote on Tarrant County's redistricting process is set for Tuesday. The backstory The mayors of 10 Tarrant County cities, including Fort Worth, Arlington, Mansfield, and Grand Prairie, have signed a letter expressing their opposition to the proposed map. The group called the effort ill-timed because it's the middle of the decade and, in their opinion, the census data from 2020 is outdated. In early April, the commission voted three to two, with commissioners Alisa Simmons and Roderick Miles opposing, to approve a contract with the Public Interest Legal Foundation to provide consultation with re-drawing district lines. The Source Information in this article came from SMU researcher Dr. Andrea Barreiro and previous FOX 4 reporting.
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Alabama may pause redistricting efforts until 2030 to avoid federal oversight
The front of Hugo L Black Courthouse in Birmingham, Alabama on August 15, 2023. (Jemma Stephenson/Alabama Reflector) The Alabama Attorney General's Office said Wednesday the state may forgo drawing new congressional district maps before 2030 to prevent federal oversight of future redistricting. The state made the argument during a meeting with a three-judge federal panel and attorneys for plaintiffs who successfully challenged two congressional maps drawn by the Legislature in 2021 and 2023 that the panel said earlier this month showed intentional discrimination against Black voters. The plaintiffs asked the panel to consider preclearance under the Voting Rights Act as a possible remedy. Preclearance would require federal approval of any changes to election laws. Alabama was subject to preclearance from 1965 to 2013, when the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the relevant section of the Voting Rights Act that dictated preclearance for areas with histories of voting discrimination. But the law does allow courts to impose it as a remedy. Less than two hours before Wednesday's hearing, attorneys for the state filed a court document stating that while they 'maintain their arguments about the necessity and constitutionality of any remedial plan,' legislative leaders 'will voluntarily forgo any rights that they may have to attempt to draw an additional congressional district map as part of remedial proceedings in this case.' SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX 'We have been talking to the state about the possibility of perhaps resolving some or all of the remedial issues in this case, and that we would like the court to give us an opportunity to continue to have those discussions if they prove fruitful,' said Deuel Ross, an attorney with the NAACP Legal Defense Fund representing the plaintiffs, during the status conference. Federal court: Alabama Legislature intentionally discriminated against Black voters in redistricting Jim Davis of the Alabama Attorney General's Office said during the status conference that, though subject to appeal, the state agrees that the map drawn by a special master would be the final remedial map. 'There have been a few discussions,' Davis said to the three-judge panel. 'It's possible that it could influence the briefing, possibly even resolve some issues.' A message seeking comment was left Wednesday with the Alabama Attorney General's office. The three-judge panel set a June 9 deadline for parties to file a joint written report on the status of the case and the possibility of resolving outstanding issues, including a request to place Alabama back into federal preclearance. 'Either we're going to sort of settle things and resolve this case, or we're going to continue on with our request for preclearance in this,' Ross said in a phone interview after the status conference. The federal court ruling found that the Alabama Legislature had ignored previous orders to create a congressional map with two districts where Black voters would have a substantial opportunity to elect their preferred candidate. Alabama has had at least one majority-Black U.S. House district – the 7th – since 1992, but plaintiffs argued that it failed to give proper representation to Black Alabamians, who make up about 27% of the state's population but, with a single majority-Black district, only made up 14% of Alabama's U.S. House delegation. The three-judge panel struck down the 2021 map in 2022, ruling that racially polarized voting in Alabama meant that Black Alabamians could not select their preferred leaders. The judges ordered the state to draw a new map, a move the U.S. Supreme Court upheld in 2023. That summer, the Republican-controlled Legislature approved a map with one majority Black district and one district that was 40% Black. The judges sharply criticized the Legislature and appointed a special master who drew a map where two of Alabama's seven U.S. House districts — the 2nd and the 7th – have majority-Black or near-majority Black populations. This map was used in the 2024 elections, resulting in the first time in history that Alabama elected two Black U.S. Representatives simultaneously. The court Wednesday also provided a hearing schedule for the preclearance issue if a settlement is not reached. The state would file its brief by June 16, and the plaintiffs would have until June 23 to respond. Intervening legislative defendants would have until June 27 to file a reply. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
3 days ago
- General
- Yahoo
Mayors clash with Tarrant County judge over "unlawful" redistricting plan
The Brief A proposed redistricting plan for Tarrant County, led by County Judge Tim O'Hare, could split Arlington into three districts. Arlington Mayor Jim Ross and nine other Tarrant County mayors oppose the plan, citing a lack of transparency, insufficient community involvement, and potential violations of state law and the Voting Rights Act. The Tarrant County Commissioners Court is scheduled to vote on the new maps on June 3, with legal challenges expected if approved. TARRANT COUNTY, Texas - Proposed redistricting maps for Tarrant County, if adopted, could see the city of Arlington split into three separate districts. The plan is led by Republican county judge Tim O'Hare to re-draw the county's district lines. What they're saying Mayor Jim Ross says that would be cumbersome for Arlington residents, but it isn't necessarily a bad thing. He points to additional issues. "I've never seen a redistricting process go this quickly without any significant community involvement whatsoever," said Ross. "Where I draw the line in speaking up and standing in opposition to things is if it is done outside the boundaries of the law, and it is done without sufficient transparency." Ross tells FOX 4 that an expert law firm out of Austin was hired to examine what has been done or not with the Tarrant County commissioners' court. "They've come back to us with a report that there appear to be violations of state law, and the voting rights act federally. That's when I reached out to other mayors…" Ross is the mayor who initiated the letter of opposition addressed to county judge Tim O'Hare, that was signed by 9 other Tarrant County mayors, mostly from the southern sector. Mayor Ross says he reached out to O'Hare before sending the letter. "I told Judge O'Hare our preference was to pull it off the agenda for June 3 and let's slow the jets a little bit and look at this thing thoroughly, and we could be collaborative on it. He told me 'I'm not pulling it off the agenda. I'll see you June 3rd.'" O'Hare has said redistricting is needed due to demographics that have changed. Ross feels there isn't enough data to make any adjustments. "When you say there's been a change, yet you use the data from a census report from five years ago, you're using old data, but saying there's new changes. Well, the commissioners' court looked at that old data five years ago and didn't find it sufficient to make any adjustments." Mayor Ross states sufficient data needs to be presented to show that redistricting is not for the purpose of discriminating against minority demographics. "There's other ways of getting that demographic data to prove your point, but you need that data in order to show that you're not discriminating against minority groups. That's required by the voting rights act." A group of elected officials led by U.S. congressman Marc Veasey on Tuesday expressed opposition, calling the effort unlawful and discriminatory to minorities. Dig deeper With the vote on the new map scheduled for June 3, FOX 4 reached out to Judge O'Hare's office for a response. In early April, the commission voted 3 to 2, with commissioners Alisa Simmons and Roderick Miles opposing, to approve a contract with the Public Interest Legal Foundation to provide consultation with re-drawing district lines. FOX 4 contacted the group on Wednesday for feedback on its work, but it has not yet responded. The Source FOX 4's Dionne Anglin gathered details for this story at a town hall event hosted by Congressman Mark Veasey, as well as an interview with Mayor Jim Ross.
Yahoo
4 days ago
- General
- Yahoo
Louisiana lawmakers reject redistricting plan with more majority Black districts
The Louisiana Capitol Building, April 8, 2021. (Wes Muller/Louisiana Illuminator). A Louisiana legislative committee has killed two bills that would have added eight new majority Black districts to the state House and Senate. The author of the proposals, Louisiana Legislative Black Caucus Chairman Rep. Edmond Jordan, D-Baton Rouge, argued the maps are necessary because a federal judge has ruled the current state legislative maps, adopted in 2022, violate the federal Voting Rights Act. Attorney General Liz Murrill has appealed that decision on the state's behalf, and the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals has yet to issue a decision. House Bill 487, which redistricts the Senate, was killed on a party-line 9-6 vote with Republicans prevailing. House Bill 488, the new House of Representative district map, fell in a 9-5 vote, again along party lines. The votes mean Louisiana will not update its legislative maps in the current legislative session, though they have the opportunity to do so in a future session. 'By us not upholding our obligation and redrawing these maps … I think it sends a signal that we are unwilling to do so,' Jordan said. 'Rather than wait on the court to come up with a decision, I think it's incumbent upon us to get ahead of that and maybe draw these maps and show the court that we're willing to comply with Section 2' of the Voting Rights Act. The section Jordan cited prohibits voter discrimination based on a person's race, color or membership in a language minority group. Republicans have argued Section 2 is outdated, as it has served its purpose to dismantle Jim Crow-era laws. Although a third of Louisianians are Black, less than a third of state legislative districts have majority Black populations. The redistricting plan adopted in 2022 maintained the same number of majority Black districts from the previous redistricting cycle, based on 2010 Census demographics, even though the percentage of the state's Black population has increased in the interim. Republicans on the committee repeatedly pointed out that the case is still on appeal and indicated they were optimistic courts may rule in the state's favor. Lawmakers also expressed concern that Jordan's plan put upwards of 20 incumbent lawmakers outside of their existing district, meaning they would either have to move to maintain residency in their current districts or run against another incumbent to return to the legislature. Jordan said that while he considered incumbency, his primary concern was giving Black voters an opportunity to elect candidates of their choice. 'What we're trying to do is attempt to unpack and uncrack these districts so that they would comply with Section 2,' Jordan said Packing is a type of gerrymandering that forces a large number of voters from one group into a single or small number of districts to weaken their power in other districts. Cracking dilutes the power of those voters into many districts. Jordan's plan would have added new majority Black House districts in Natchitoches, Lake Charles, Shreveport and Baton Rouge, and Black Senate districts in Baton Rouge, Shreveport and Jefferson Parish. Republican lawmakers expect the 5th Circuit to wait to release an opinion on the legislative maps until after the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled on Louisiana's current congressional district boundaries, as the decision might create new precedent. In the congressional redistricting case, non-Black voters are suing the state over a map lawmakers passed last year that created a second majority Black district, arguing it violated their constitutional rights. The Supreme Court decision is expected later next month. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
