Latest news with #gerrymandering
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
North Carolina elections take a risky turn
The new NC Board of Elections, with all members appointed by the state Auditor, are sworn in on May 7, 2025. Left to right, Jeff Carmon, Chairman Francis DeLuca, Stacy "Four" Eggers, Siohban Millen, and Robert Rucho. Our democracy, with free and fair elections at the cornerstone, can be warped in favor of those who manipulate the election process to their advantage – who gets to vote, when and where, and which votes are included when they're finally counted. Call that a cornerstone of autocracy. For the past 15 years in North Carolina, ever since Republicans captured majorities in the state House and Senate amid President Obama's first-term struggles, the party has sought to solidify its hold on power in just that fashion. The tactics have been manifold: gerrymandering that puts Republicans in disproportionate numbers of safe seats. Photo ID rules that cut against groups of voters who might tend to favor Democrats. Stricter rules for absentee voting that result in some ballots being tossed because they weren't received in time, perhaps because of postal delays. Republican legislators have been the driving force behind such changes – with elected Republican judges helpfully turning aside cries of foul from Democrats and their allies among voting-rights advocates. All of that brings us to a chain of events triggered by last fall's elections, in which Democrat Josh Stein claimed the governor's mansion and, by a single seat in the House, Republicans lost their veto-proof legislative majority. The results apparently left Republicans in the General Assembly to vow, 'You ain't seen nothing yet!' The counter-strategy they cooked up has panned out with what amounts to a hostile takeover of an agency that worked to advance the principles of honest, orderly elections in which every eligible citizen is encouraged to participate. That is of course the State Board of Elections – under control of the governor's party by virtue of a law dating back decades. The takeover was set in motion when it became clear that, with Stein's victory, the board otherwise would continue with a Democratic majority. Legislators decreed that instead of by the governor, appointments to the board would be made by the state auditor – a post captured in the November balloting by Republican Dave Boliek. In essence, the auditor would hold the reins when it came to the state's election oversight. The changeover would – and did – take effect on May 1, after Stein's court challenge was sidetracked by Republicans on the state Court of Appeals and then the state Supreme Court. As it would happen, much water went under the bridge between the passage in December (over Stein's veto) of Senate Bill 382 and the power shift in which Boliek appointed new Republican members to run the board, and the board's nationally heralded executive director, Democratic appointee Karen Brinson Bell, was ousted. North Carolina's political headlines throughout the end of 2024 and the first months of 2025 were dominated by the contested Supreme Court election between Democratic incumbent Justice Allison Riggs and her challenger, Republican Judge Jefferson Griffin of the Court of Appeals. Riggs' 734-vote victory finally was nailed down on May 5 – no thanks to Griffin's allies on the two appellate courts who agreed with him that thousands of votes shouldn't have been counted. It took a Republican-appointed federal judge to explain why disallowing those votes would have violated the constitutional rights of citizens who cast them. Here's where the Riggs-Griffin clash and the Board of Elections saga became intertwined. The board, for reasons ultimately validated by Chief U.S. District Judge Richard Myers, resisted the attempt to disallow votes that Griffin claimed shouldn't have been counted, even though the people who cast them, including military and overseas voters, hadn't knowingly violated any rules and there was no evidence of fraud. If the board hadn't pushed back, insisting for example that overseas voters actually didn't need to submit copies of photo IDs, chances are that enough votes from likely Democrats would have been tossed aside that Griffin would have won the race. Myers boiled down his thinking in everyday language: The legality of certain conduct should be assessed according to the laws in effect at the time. 'That principle will be familiar to anyone who has played a sport or board game,' he wrote. 'You establish the rules before the game. You don't change them after the game is done.' That was the election board's point all along. Yes, it aligned with Democratic arguments. But nobody would accuse Judge Myers of carrying the Democrats' water. While Griffin's effort to overtake Riggs worked its way through the judicial pipeline, the law transferring election oversight to the state auditor was being challenged by Stein as an infringement on his executive powers. He argued that the state constitution gives him final responsibility for seeing that the laws are faithfully carried out, and thus he needs to be able to appoint a majority on the elections board who share his commitment to elections operated in the public interest. Other attempts by the General Assembly to horn in the powers of Stein's predecessor, Democrat Roy Cooper, were turned aside by the courts as violations of the separation of powers between the legislative and executive branches. In the case of S.B. 382, top lawmakers argued that since state auditors are themselves executive branch officials, the legislature's constitutional prerogative to assign duties within that branch allows them to take oversight of the elections board away from Stein and give it to Boliek. In accord with the state's procedure for refereeing alleged constitutional violations, Stein's lawsuit was routed to a three-judge panel in Wake County Superior Court. After a full-dress review, with briefs and oral arguments, the panel on April 23 reached a 2-1 decision that Stein's complaints were justified. Even though North Carolina parcels out various executive duties to the elected members of the Council of State, including such figures as the state treasurer and the attorney general as well as the state auditor, the panel held that under the state constitution ultimate responsibility for the appointed Board of Elections lies with the governor. The two-person majority included one Democratic judge and one Republican. A Republican judge dissented. Republican Senate President Pro Tem Phil Berger and House Speaker Destin Hall appealed to the Republican-dominated state Court of Appeals. On April 30 – the day before the election board change was to take effect – a three-person panel of the court's judges sided with the legislators, meaning that the changeover could go ahead. The unanimous, unsigned ruling contained no explanation and the judges who participated weren't identified. No prizes for accountability there! Stein filed a last-ditch appeal with the Supreme Court, where Republicans also rule the roost. With no immediate intervention by the high court, Boliek on May 1 took command of North Carolina's election machinery. Instead of a 3-2 Democratic majority with a Democratic chairman, with Boliek's appointees the elections board emerged with a 3-2 Republican majority. The new chairman is Francis De Luca, a Republican activist who hardly has been a cheerleader for so-called same-day registration during early voting – a convenience encouraging many eligible citizens to cast their ballots. Another new member, former Republican state Sen. Robert Rucho, would belong in the Gerrymanderers Hall of Fame, were there such a dubious institution, for his work to tilt the scales in favor of Republican candidates for the legislature and Congress. When the Supreme Court finally responded to Stein's appeal, it rejected the governor's argument that the reassignment of election oversight to the auditor should have been blocked while the appellate courts weighed the constitutional issues. That leaves the election board's new governance structure intact while Stein pursues his case. Of course as time elapses, as Boliek proceeds to appoint new members of county election boards and as this fall's elections approach, unwinding that new structure becomes increasingly impractical. The high court's opinion was unsigned, meaning it was supported by the five Republican justices, although Justice Richard Dietz in a concurrence criticized the Court of Appeals' opaque handling of the matter. Dissents came from the court's two Democrats – Riggs, freshly sworn back into office after her drawn-out election win, and Anita Earls. 'The voters hired Joshua Stein and David Boliek to do specific jobs, and the General Assembly is restructuring those jobs after the election,' Earls wrote. 'The General Assembly may not grab power over enforcement of election laws by shuttling the Board [of Elections] between statewide elected officials until it finds one willing to do its bidding.' Well, that sort of power grab looks to be just what the legislature's Republican chiefs had in mind, and acceding to it looks to be just what the appellate courts are inclined to do. Continue down that path, and they'll be turning over supervision of the state's elections to people whose 'election integrity' mantra has proven to be code for voter suppression driven by right-wing partisanship. Not only does that degrade our democratic system, but it also puts the best interests of many North Carolinians vulnerable to economic, educational, environmental and health challenges at unacceptable risk.
CBS News
3 days ago
- General
- CBS News
Tarrant County Judge defends redistricting process: "It's 100% about partisan politics"
The Tarrant County Commissioners Court is set to vote June 3 on a controversial proposal to redraw precinct boundary lines — a move that has drawn sharp criticism from residents, local leaders, and civil rights advocates. County Judge Tim O'Hare, who initiated the redistricting process, told CBS News Texas on Friday that the effort aligns with a campaign promise he made in 2021. Tarrant County Judge Tim O'Hare CBS News Texas "This is something that I campaigned on dating back to 2021 — that this would be the time where we would look at redistricting," O'Hare said. O'Hare defends GOP strategy O'Hare has been open about his political motivations. "Give me a map that guarantees three Republican commissioners seats," he said. "That's what I've asked for." Currently, the Commissioners Court is evenly split with two Republicans and two Democrats. O'Hare, a Republican, believes adding another GOP commissioner would better serve the county. Critics cite racial concerns The proposed maps show significant changes to Precincts 1 and 2, both currently represented by Democrats. Critics say the new boundaries would shift areas with large Black and Hispanic populations out of Precinct 2 and into Precinct 1, potentially diluting minority voting power. In response to accusations of racial gerrymandering, O'Hare said, "This is about partisan politics. You can legally in this country, according to the U.S. Supreme Court, draw maps for partisan purposes. So for me, it's 100% about partisan politics." 10 mayors urge delay, review Ten Tarrant County mayors — including those from Fort Worth, Arlington, and Grand Prairie — signed a letter urging commissioners to delay the vote. They warned that the proposed maps could violate the U.S. Voting Rights Act and face legal challenges. City councils in Fort Worth, Arlington, and Grand Prairie also passed resolutions opposing the redistricting process. "We know Democrats are going to challenge," O'Hare said. "But when you say it can affect minority groups, I think Republican governance is better for all people, regardless of race. And I would also tell you, Democrats don't have a monopoly on non-whites." O'Hare said the redistricting would help ensure Republican leadership on the court for the next decade. "I believe Republicans offer better ideas for governing — better ideas for cutting taxes, eliminating waste, fraud and abuse, keeping people safe, and maintaining law and order," he said. "And I think every single countywide officeholder — judge, tax assessor, sheriff, D.A., you name it — is a Republican. This will strengthen our Republican majority on the court. And I think it's what's best for everyone in Tarrant County, not just Republicans." Support from conservative suburbs On Thursday, the mayors of Southlake, Keller, North Richland Hills, and Colleyville voiced support for redistricting. They argued that major counties like Dallas and Harris redrew maps after the 2020 census and said it was "political malfeasance" that Tarrant County did not do the same. A previous redistricting effort in 2021, led by a Republican-majority court, resulted in no changes to the precinct maps. Commissioner Alisa Simmons, who opposes the current proposal, said that process was thorough and legally sound. "Tarrant County fulfilled its duty to redistrict in 2021 following the 2020 Census," Simmons said in a statement. "A Texas-based law firm that specializes in redistricting guided the county through a detailed and deliberate process over months with extensive community involvement. Because the existing boundaries were well within the allowed deviation, complied fully with state and federal law, and fairly reflected both the political and racial makeup of our county, they were confirmed by a bipartisan vote." She added: "Any statement that Tarrant County did not fulfill its responsibility to redistrict in 2021 is blatantly false. Tim O'Hare knows this but, inexcusably, is coercing local leaders to repeat his lie." Critics have also raised concerns that the proposed changes are based on outdated data, as redistricting typically follows the decennial U.S. Census. The next census is scheduled for 2030. Legal, data questions raised The conservative law firm hired by the county, the Public Interest Legal Foundation, has not released the criteria or data used to draw the new maps. O'Hare said the firm is using a broad range of data beyond the 2020 census. "They're looking at all sorts of things," he said. "It's a very comprehensive look. The demographer, I think, is one of the top demographers in the country. The lawyers — this is what they do for a living." New maps added Friday The speed of the process has also drawn criticism. The vote is scheduled just nine weeks after the law firm was hired. "I think two months has been plenty of time," O'Hare said. "If you don't want it to change, I understand why you say that. But people have had plenty of opportunity to weigh in, look at it, become aware and participate. And we've had hundreds of people submit emails, comments, show up in person. I think the word is out." On Friday, the county added two new map options to the list of proposals under consideration.
Yahoo
24-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Are Tarrant's proposed redistricting maps racial gerrymanders? We asked experts
In Reality Check stories, Star-Telegram journalists dig deeper into questions over facts, consequences and accountability. More. A proposal to redraw Tarrant County voting precincts has become the latest controversy to roil the commissioners court in recent weeks. While redistricting is generally done every 10 years following the release of census data, the commissioner court's three Republicans say new precinct maps are necessary after Tarrant County has seen rapid growth in recent years. They're scheduled to vote on it June 3. (On Friday, 10 mayors including Fort Worth and Arlington's urged the commissioners to delay the vote.) The court's two Democrats, and roughly two-thirds of people who spoke at Tuesday's commissioners meeting, oppose the plan. They called it an attempt to racially gerrymander to oust Precinct 2 Commissioner Alisa Simmons, a Democrat who is Black, and get a Republican voted back into the seat in the 2026 elections. Precinct 4 Commissioner Manny Ramirez, a Republican, did not attend a May 13 public feedback hearing on the plan in Azle, but he did say in a recent op-ed published by the Star-Telegram that redistricting will 'help preserve the kind of leadership that has served Tarrant County well.' The plan is politically, not racially, motivated, he said. Fellow Republican Matt Krause, commissioner of Precinct 3, concurred at Tuesday's session, saying the Supreme Court 'has said partisan gerrymandering is fine.' So which is it? Is Tarrant County's proposal a high court-sanctioned case of politically motivated redistricting? Or is this a case of racial gerrymandering? We asked several experts this week to get their analyses. The Star-Telegram also reached out to the Public Interest Legal Foundation, the Virginia-based 'election integrity' law firm that the commissioners voted to hire along party lines for the redistricting, and to Adam Kincaid of the National Republican Redistricting Trust, who drew the maps. Neither has responded. Ramirez, Krause and Republican County Judge Tim O'Hare did not respond to requests for comment. Racial gerrymandering is the act of redrawing the boundaries of a voting district in a way that dilutes the voting power of a minority language or racial group. Protections against this dilution are found in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which guarantees equal protection under the law, and Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965: 'No voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed or applied by any State or political subdivision to deny or abridge the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color.' The Supreme Court's landmark 1986 decision in Thornburg v. Gingles created a three-part test to determine if a redistricting plan violates the Voting Rights Act. The test requires that a minority group: Prove that it is large and geographically compact enough to comprise a majority in a single-member district; Show that the it is politically cohesive; and Demonstrate that a majority group, such as white people, votes sufficiently as a bloc for their candidate to defeat the preferred candidate of a minority, such as Black people, under normal circumstances. In lieu of proof of intent to racially gerrymander, the Thornburg v. Gingles test has been used for decades to determine if redrawn electoral districts in effect dilute a minority group's voting power. Recent Supreme Court decisions have found that overtly political motives for redistricting do not violate the Constitution or federal law. However, it would be incorrect to say partisan gerrymandering is 'fine,' according to Kareem Crayton, a voting and redistricting specialist at the Brennan Center for Justice. 'What the Supreme Court said was, as far as federal law is concerned, the federal Constitution is concerned, there is no bar that they can see in the Constitution for preventing a district map from pursuing an overtly partisan agenda,' Crayton said. The court did not say that Congress or local governments cannot bar partisan gerrymandering or that an assertion of partisan gerrymandering protects from racial discrimination claims like those brought under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Organizations like the Public Interest Legal Foundation and the National Republican Redistricting Trust, both of which Crayton described as 'no fans of the Voting Rights Act,' try to cite partisanship as justification that protects them from any other claim. This is incorrect, he said, adding that map data should be analyzed to determine that partisanship is not used as a 'smoke screen' for racial gerrymandering. The partisanship defense only stands if those who redrew the maps, 'regardless of their intention,' can show that the new districts do not dilute minority groups' voting power, Crayton said. Each of the five proposed maps for new precincts in Tarrant County appears to track the boundaries of areas with the highest shares of minority voters, per the latest census data. This is one of the 'telltale signs of racial gerrymandering,' said Nicholas Stephanopoulos, a professor of constitutional and election law at Harvard. Census data appear to show that minority groups in Precincts 1 and 2, whose boundaries would change most significantly, are geographically compact enough to create 'at least a couple of districts,' said David Schultz, a political science professor at Hamline University and law professor at the University of Minnesota. The map drawers appear to be 'carving the lines up in a way to prevent what looks like a racially and geographically cohesive community from being able to elect what looks like at least two members,' Schultz said. 'Under the Gingles test, and subsequent court cases after that, we can make the argument that this is a racial gerrymander.' Stephanopoulos said the maps look like a 'potentially unconstitutional racial gerrymander,' meaning it appears that 'race improperly predominated' in their design. To successfully argue a Voting Rights Act claim, Stephanopoulos said, a plaintiff would need to compare precinct-specific demographic data with the results of an ecological inference study, which estimates voting behaviors based on aggregate-level election data. Ecological inference estimates from Harvard Law School's Election Law Clinic show that voting is dramatically polarized along racial lines in Tarrant County, which Stephanopoulos said would support a Voting Rights Act violation claim. 'The most important issue would be whether it's possible to draw additional majority-minority districts' per the first prong of the Gingles test, he said. Redistricting experts at the voting rights organization Common Cause Texas found that in all of the maps, the non-white population of the new Precinct 1 would be around 80%. People of color currently make up 69.7% of the current precinct. In the Republicans' preferred map, Precinct 2 would drop from around 64% non-white residents to 49%. That map would raise the number of Democratic voters in Precinct 1 from 60% to 70%, and reduce the number of registered Democrats in Precinct 2 from 52% to 42%. 'Under each of these proposed plans, undeniably communities of color will be the ones who lose out of proper representation,' said Anthony Gutierrez, Common Cause Texas' executive director. The maps appear to show packing of minority groups, which in Tarrant County largely translates to Democratic voters, into Precinct 1 in order to make Precinct 2 — currently represented by Simmons — more advantageous for Republicans, he said. The organization entered the current precinct map and all five proposed maps into Dave's Redistricting App, a census and elections data mapping tool. The app marks Tarrant County's current map as having two precincts that lean Republican: Precincts 3 and 4, with 61.76% and 54.16% of voters, respectively. Precinct 1 is marked as leaning heavily Democratic, with 60% of voters going blue at the ballot box. Precinct 2, where demographics would change most drastically under the proposed maps, is listed as being 'in the 45-55% competitive range.' You can check out the interactive maps and data sets for each of the proposed maps at the following links. Proposal 1 (Republicans' preferred map) Proposal 2 Proposal 3 Proposal 4 Proposal 5 'The entire point of redrawing political boundaries is to ensure all residents have proper representation, not to advantage a political party,' Gutierrez said. 'If (Tarrant County Judge Tim O'Hare) is doing this for purely political reasons, there is no way this process is going to end with Tarrant County citizens getting districts that are fair for all.'
CBS News
20-05-2025
- Politics
- CBS News
Fort Worth City Council approves resolution opposing Tarrant County redistricting process
Tarrant County officials are moving forward with a controversial plan to redraw commissioners' precinct boundaries, despite growing opposition from residents and elected leaders. More than 100 people signed up to speak at Tuesday's Commissioners Court meeting, with the vast majority opposing the redistricting proposal. CBS News Texas "This is not what public service should look like," one speaker said during public comment. "If the court believes redistricting is necessary and fair, then explain it. Engage us. Show your work." Redistricting sparks political tension County Judge Tim O'Hare initiated the redistricting process in early April. Commissioners voted to hire a conservative law firm to develop new maps. While redistricting typically follows the decennial U.S. Census, O'Hare and other Republicans argue that the county's rapid population growth requires earlier changes to preserve conservative leadership. Supporters of the plan were in the minority at Tuesday's meeting. "I'm asking you to vote in favor of redistricting. I prefer Map 1, but I'm supportive of at least one of the other maps. Again, please do not Dallas my Tarrant County," one resident said. Critics decry racial gerrymandering Earlier this month, five proposed maps were introduced to the court, each suggesting major alterations to Precincts 1 and 2, districts currently represented by Democratic commissioners. Critics argue the redistricting amounts to racial gerrymandering aimed at diluting minority voting power. "We cannot build stronger communities by cracking them apart or packing their voices into silence," Commissioner Roderick Miles Jr. said. "What you have seen today is not a continuation of the responsible process that was done in 2021. It is a sharp break from it. From the outset, this new redistricting effort has been defined, not by community participation, but by speed, secrecy, and the prioritization of political outcomes over public trust." The law firm hired to draw the maps has not disclosed the criteria or data used to create the proposals, further fueling opposition. "You're elected to be accountable to all people in this county," one speaker told the court. "Stand with constituents. Stand for fairness, transparency, and real democracy. Shut down this redistricting proposal." Fort Worth, Arlington push back Opposition has extended beyond the Commissioners Court. The Fort Worth City Council passed a resolution Tuesday formally opposing the redistricting process. Last week, Arlington Mayor Jim Ross commissioned a report to investigate the legality of the proposal. Republican commissioners remained largely silent during Tuesday's meeting. Commissioner Matt Krause, however, asked a few questions to a staff member brought in by Commissioner Alisa Simmons. "Would it be right for me to say that the courts, the Supreme Court especially, has said partisan gerrymandering is fine? It's completely up to that body. Racial gerrymandering, very bad — but partisan gerrymandering, we're going to refer to that district," Krause said. June 3 vote looms large As the June 3 vote approaches, community members and officials are urging the court to reconsider. "The public overwhelmingly opposes this redistricting effort," one speaker said. "We've seen it in packed meetings, petition signatures, and voices rising across this county." Tarrant County has held three community meetings on the redistricting plans this month, with a fourth scheduled for 6 p.m. Wednesday at the Gary Fickes Northeast Courthouse in Hurst.
Wall Street Journal
18-05-2025
- Politics
- Wall Street Journal
Wisconsin's Plan for a Judicial Coup
Democrats went all-in to retain control of the Wisconsin Supreme Court this year and here comes the payoff. Progressive law firms recently filed two suits asking the Justices to overturn the state's Congressional maps. If they succeed, Democrats will get a chance at redrawing districts to favor their candidates. According to the lawsuit brought by the Elias Law Group, the current map 'impermissibly disadvantages voters based on their political views and partisan affiliation, systematically disfavoring Democrats because they are Democrats.' The Wisconsin Congressional delegation is currently balanced 6-2, a tilt the left claims is outrageous for a swing state and therefore evidence of a Republican gerrymander. The lawsuit says the current maps are guilty of 'packing the substantial share of Wisconsin's Democrats into just two congressional districts.' But Wisconsin's Democratic voters are concentrated in two areas in real life: progressive Madison and Milwaukee. That makes it difficult for the maps to be otherwise without drawing an Illinois-style map that looks like a game of Chutes and Ladders. Democrats want to distribute urban liberal voters through other districts to trump Republican-leaning rural and exurban voters. That scheme is at odds with Wisconsin's traditional redistricting requirements to maintain counties, municipalities and ward lines. The Wisconsin Supreme Court adopted the current Congressional districts (a map submitted by Democratic Gov. Tony Evers) in 2022 as consistent with the state constitution on these legal grounds. The court said at the time that the map 'complies with the federal Constitution and all other applicable laws.' The second lawsuit, brought by the Campaign Legal Center, nonetheless argues that the current maps violate the Wisconsin Constitution's Equal Protection Guarantee. The malapportionment they allege is a matter of one or two voters. According to the brief, it's possible to create a Congressional map 'with six districts containing 736,715 people and two districts containing 736,714 people.' Drum roll. The allegedly unconstitutional map contains districts that 'have either 736,714 people, 736,715 people, or 736,716 people.' The arguments are so thin because the Democratic plaintiffs figure the result is in the bag. Wisconsin's newest Supreme Court Justice, Susan Crawford, joined a donor call during her campaign this year that touted her election as a 'chance to put two more House seats in play for 2026.' Justice Janet Protasiewicz called state Assembly and Senate election maps 'rigged' during her election campaign, and the Wisconsin Supreme Court overturned the state's legislative maps not long after her victory created a 4-3 progressive court majority. Judicial elections in Wisconsin these days count for more than those for Governor or the Legislature.
