“Federal court rejects congressional redistricting challenge as state lawsuit awaits Florida Supreme Court”

The Tributary:

A three-judge federal panel unanimously upheld a controversial congressional map backed by Gov. Ron DeSantis, despite accusations he and the Legislature discriminated against Black voters.

The judges agreed that the plaintiffs failed to show the Legislature was discriminating when it approved Gov. DeSantis’ map.

“It is not enough for the plaintiffs to show that the Governor was motivated in part by racial animus, which we will assume without deciding for purposes of our decision,” the court wrote. “Rather, they also must prove that the Florida Legislature itself acted with some discriminatory purpose when adopting and passing the Enacted Map. This they have not done.”

The lawsuit targeted DeSantis’ efforts to dismantle a congressional district in North Florida, a district that enabled Black voters to elect their preferred candidates for three decades.

Share this:

Amid SCOTUS’s Continued Silence, Federal District Court in South Carolina Racial Gerrymandering Case Will Allow Congressional Election to Go Forward Under District It Held Illegal

Here is the order:

The present circumstances make it plainly impractical for the Court to adopt a remedial plan for Congressional District No. 1 in advance of the military and overseas absentee ballot deadline of April 27, 2024 mandated under federal law and the party primaries scheduled for June 11, 2024. Having found that Congressional District No. 1 constitutes an unconstitutional racial gerrymander, the Court fully recognizes that “it would be the unusual case in which a court would be justified in not taking appropriate action to insure that no further elections are conducted under an invalid plan.” Reynolds v. Simms, 377 U.S. 533, 585 (1964). But with the primary election procedures rapidly approaching, the appeal before the Supreme Court still pending, and no remedial plan in place, the ideal must bend to the practical.

I believe this moots the pending motion at the Supreme Court to order the lower court do to the same thing.

This case was argued at SCOTUS on the merits in October. That we don’t have a ruling yet likely means there’s likely to be some dissents coming from whatever the Court is going to do on the merits.

Share this:

“GOP scrambles to organize early and mail voting despite Trump’s attacks”

WaPo:

In December, Donald Trump called for the end of mail-in voting in presidential elections. In February, he told Michigan voters that “mail-in voting is totally corrupt.” He later told Fox News host Laura Ingraham that “if you have mail-in balloting, you automatically have fraud.”

“The ballots are a disaster,” he said earlier this month to British TV host Nigel Farage, without offering evidence and despite having voted by mail himself in recent elections. “Any time the mail is involved, you’re going to have cheating. It’s too bad people don’t say it. They don’t want to say it.”

That message is complicating plans by officials at Trump’s campaign and the Republican National Committee to orchestrate aggressive efforts in key battleground states to persuade voters to cast their ballots early and by mail. Party officials say the efforts are crucial to win the election.

In an interview, RNC Chairman Michael Whatley said the party would spend considerable money — he would not say how much — to encourage voters to vote by mail and help collect ballots, a practice known as ballot harvesting that is legal in some states but that Trump has decried.

“We’ve got to get every one of our voters to vote, no matter the method,” Whatley said. “We want people to use mail-in voting where it is legal. We want people to ballot harvest where it’s legal. We want to comply with the laws in every state.”

Trump advisers say their get-out-the-vote effort will include persuading people to vote by mail if they believe it is the method the person is likely to use based on their voting history, including making sure ballots are mailed to people who request them.

Share this:

Judge Recommends John Eastman Be Disbarred, and Pay a Sanction of $10,000, for His Conduct Seeking to Subvert the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election

From the 128-page opinion: As an initial matter, the court rejects Eastman’s contention that this disciplinary proceeding and Eastman’s resultant discipline is motivated by his political views or his representation of President Trump or President Trump’s Campaign. Rather, Eastman’s… Continue reading