Category Archives: redistricting

“How Nancy Pelosi Quietly Shaped California’s Redistricting Fight”

NYT:

One Friday in early August, Nancy Pelosi and Gavin Newsom sat together in the historic governor’s mansion in Sacramento and began dialing some of the nation’s wealthiest Democrats for dollars.

Ms. Pelosi, the 85-year-old former House speaker, and Mr. Newsom, the 57-year-old governor of California, have known each other for decades. She has been his mentor, and their circles are so entwined as scions of San Francisco that their families were even blended by marriage at one point.

But this was something entirely new for them both as they raced to raise cash for a fall ballot campaign on redistricting that could shape the 2026 midterms.

Ms. Pelosi would begin with pleasantries, according to three people granted anonymity to discuss private fund-raising calls made that day. Then she would hand the phone to Mr. Newsom to close the deal. The choreography was partly borne of a mindfulness of tangled federal rules about soliciting outsized checks, and partly out of deference to Mr. Newsom.

Well, at least most of the time.

“That’s certainly not enough,” Ms. Pelosi blurted out to one potential contributor who had floated a sizable, but apparently not sizable enough, donation. Everyone burst out laughing, according to two people with knowledge of the tandem fund-raising. “I think we can do better,” she ribbed at another point.

The moment at the mansion provided a glimpse of Ms. Pelosi’s behind-the-scenes role in a redistricting push with national consequences. At President Trump’s behest, Republican-led states, starting with Texas, are moving rapidly to rip up their congressional boundaries and boost G.O.P. chances of keeping control of the House next fall. California represents Democrats’ biggest and best hope for a meaningful counteroffensive…..

Share this:

“Missouri lawmakers give final approval to map targeting a Democratic House seat”

CNN:

Missouri’s Republican-controlled Senate on Friday passed a new congressional map, taking final legislative action to target one of the state’s Democratic seats in the US House and boost the GOP’s chances of retaining its fragile majority in the chamber.

The 21-11 vote came just two weeks after the state’s GOP Gov. Mike Kehoe first unveiled the map and ordered a special legislative session to approve it. It targets longtime Democratic Rep. Emanuel Cleaver by carving up his Kansas City-area district and stretching its boundaries into rural, Republican-friendly areas of central Missouri.

Cleaver has pledged to fight the map in court and has said he plans to seek reelection. Opponents also intend to attempt to put the map before voters in the form of a referendum. They have 90 days after the map is signed into law to collect the signatures needed to force a statewide vote….

Share this:

“White House may discuss mid-decade redistricting with Nebraska lawmakers this week”

Nebraska Examiner:

A handful of Nebraska lawmakers are set to travel to Washington, D.C., this week for a “state leadership conference” at the White House’s invitation. 

But, if what happened with delegations from other states is an indication, another reason for the trip might be for President Donald Trump and his team to lay groundwork for asking another red state to redistrict congressional boundaries to Republican advantage before the 2026 election. 

At least four Nebraska lawmakers confirmed with the Examiner that they are headed to Capitol Hill on Tuesday. The official reason is the leadership conference organized by the White House Office of Intergovernmental Affairs….

Share this:

“Missouri House Set to Vote on Map That Boosts Republicans”

NYT:

The Missouri House of Representatives is poised to vote on Tuesday on new congressional boundaries that would create an additional Republican-leaning district, part of President Trump’s national push to redraw maps to favor his party ahead of the midterm elections.

As lawmakers gathered at the Missouri State Capitol this week, Democrats, who are outnumbered, decried the new boundaries as “brazen,” “shameless,” cheating or “all to protect Trump,” and questioned whether drawing a new map now was even legal. States generally pass new congressional boundaries once a decade, after the results of the census are published.

“If we sanction this midcycle redraw, we will be joining the long and shameful line of the states that have used legal language to silence voters rather than to protect them,” said State Representative Kem Smith, a Democrat from the St. Louis area.

But Republicans used their large majority on Monday to advance the new map, which would split a Kansas City-based district now held by Representative Emanuel Cleaver, a Democrat who has held a congressional seat for two decades. The proposed boundaries would favor Republicans in seven of Missouri’s eight districts, up from the six seats they currently hold. The new boundaries would splice Kansas City’s core into districts with large rural areas….

Share this:

“Republicans brace for redistricting ‘catastrophe’ in California”

Politico:

Republicans wield almost no power in California. But as a moribund state party gathered here over the weekend, it confronted an even grimmer reality now suddenly settling in: If the state gerrymanders its congressional map, they’ll practically be an endangered species.

“It’s a guillotine,” said Dale Quasny, a party delegate and real-estate broker from suburban Los Angeles County. “We won’t be able to pick up the pieces and move forward. I mean, we were making a little headway, but this would be a catastrophe.”

ong locked out of power in Sacramento, one thing that Republicans here and nationally have counted on for years from California was influence in U.S. House races — and the ability to help deliver Republican majorities by winning battleground races in the state’s Central Valley and Orange County.

Now they’re on the brink of losing even that — a consequence of the redistricting wars that could cost the GOP as many as five House seats in California.

It is in part the Republican president, Donald Trump, who got them here. The GOP base in the state is as ardently MAGA as anywhere. But it was Trump’s push for a Republican gerrymandering in deep-red Texas that sparked a national battle over redistricting, provoking Gov. Gavin Newsom and Democratic leaders to respond with a Nov. 4 ballot measure to gerrymander California’s lines.

Even Republicans here, while chiding Newsom, were critical of Trump’s redistricting effort. And as rank-and-file members of the GOP gathered in Orange County for their annual convention, the festivities were overshadowed by angst over the consequences of redistricting in a deep-blue state.

“I’m certainly frustrated that our party’s leadership has not been more proactive in trying to stop a redistricting war,” said Republican Rep. Kevin Kiley, whose seat in the Sacramento suburbs is at risk of being drawn out of existence. “We shouldn’t be having mid-decade redistricting in any state.”

If there is any bright spot for Republicans, it’s that the left has had some difficulty recently with ballot measures. Voters last year rejected statewide proposals to ban forced prison labor, raise the minimum wage and expand rent control. [Non-partisan line-drawing is overwhelmingly popular in California.] And if Republicans can defeat Newsom’s redistricting effort, they would hand him a significant setback on the cusp of a likely 2028 presidential campaign.

Even internal polling from Democrats in the state Legislature suggests the GOP’s messaging on the initiative could be effective with some voters, including that “two wrongs don’t make a right” and that it “undermines democracy.”

While polling shared with Democrats in the state Assembly last week and obtained by POLITICO found a majority of voters support a redrawn map, it also suggests the plan could be vulnerable if Democrats don’t turn out in November, with many independent voters skeptical of the concept of gerrymandering….

Share this:

Should Representative Ronny Jackson’s Lawyers Be Sanctioned for Filing a Frivolous Federal Lawsuit Attacking California’s Proposed Ballot Measure Redrawing Congressional Districts?

This ridiculous complaint went nowhere even before federal district judge Matthew Kascmaryk given that Rep. Jackson could not prove irreparable harm before the ballot measure even passes and given that Jackson failed to give notice to the other side. Here’s a news story on the rejection of the motion for a TRO.

But look at the complaint on the merits. The first claim purports to state a violation of the Elections Clause, which gives state legislatures the power to set the rules for conducting federal elections, subject to Congressional override. Jackson’s argument made me laugh out loud. It’s a reverse independent state legislature theory argument, that the CA legislature could not put a state constitutional amendment on the ballot to reverse the use of an independent commission for congressional redistricting for the rest of the decade because that would violate the state constitution. By definition, an amendment to the Constitution that overturns an old provision of the constitution cannot be unconstitutional, and in any case it does not violate the federal Elections Clause limiting the power of the state legislature.

This argument is a frivolous embarrassment.

Share this:

Amicus Brief on the Fifteenth Amendment in Louisiana v. Callais

Another ELB contributor has entered the Callais fray. Today, I filed an amicus brief in support of the Robinson appellants in this fall’s blockbuster voting rights case, Louisiana v. Callais. You can find my amicus brief here. Thanks to Rakesh Kilaru, Dan Epps, Allison Walter, and the paralegal team at Wilkinson Stekloff LLP for help with the brief.

Drawing on my scholarship about the Fifteenth Amendment, the amicus brief makes three arguments. First, as originally understood, the Equal Protection Clause did not apply to voting rights. Rather, it was the Fifteenth Amendment that enfranchised Black men nationwide and granted Congress robust enforcement authority. Thus, the Fifteenth—not the Fourteenth—Amendment is the constitutional touchstone for the fight against racial discrimination in voting.

Second, when viewed through the lens of the Fifteenth Amendment, Shaw should be overturned. I suspect that this claim will spark some controversy in the field and among voting rights lawyers. Although Shaw was briefly used to advance minority voting rights in the 2010s, it is not worth the candle. Callais demonstrates that Shaw’s colorblind approach to redistricting threatens Section 2’s constitutionality. Moreover, Shaw is indefensible as written from an originalist perspective, something that Justice Thomas recognized last year in his Alexander concurrence but the other originalist Justices have not yet grappled with. For starters, the Shaw Court reached for the wrong constitutional provision. It applied equal protection principles to what should be a Fifteenth Amendment case. More fundamentally, the Reconstruction Framers’ views on racially polarized voting would have been labelled by the Shaw Court as impermissible racial stereotypes.Stated bluntly, the Shaw Court’s approach reflects modern, normative views on racial politics, not the views of the Reconstruction generation. The other stare decisis factors also militate in favor of overruling: Shaw and its predominant factor standard are unworkable, inconsistent with precedent, and have been undermined by recent factual and legal developments.

Third, Section 2 is a constitutional exercise of Congress’s Fifteenth Amendment enforcement authority. Because that power is governed by Katzenbach’s deferential standard, the Court need not answer the antecedent question of whether racial vote dilution is prohibited by Section One of the Fifteenth Amendment. Rather, the question is whether Congress could have reasonably concluded that racial vote dilution is a denial or abridgment of the right to vote free of racial discrimination. It assuredly is.

One last aside. We should probably start calling this case Robinson v. Callais after Louisiana flipped sides and attacked Section 2’s constitutionality. It’s not terribly surprising that Louisiana did so, but the Louisiana v. Callais captioning gives a false impression of what the case is now about.

Share this:

“The Hidden Cause (and Higher Stakes) of the Gerrymandering Crisis”

Michael Parsons and Kevin Johnson in The Fulcrum:

The gerrymandering wars have laid bare the unique Achilles’ heel at the heart of our structural dysfunction: We give partisan institutions immense power over the rules of elections. No other peer democracy entrusts politicians with control over as many pieces of electoral machinery as the United States. Ignoring these major flaws has long left American democracy susceptible to authoritarian capture, and now the bill is coming due….

 One hidden cause of the current crisis is rising partisan manipulation of ballot measures, which has contributed significantly to the redistricting arms race over the past decade.

In three red states (OhioMissouri, and Utah), majorities backed strong, citizen-led anti-gerrymandering measures. But, in all three states, either Republican legislatures overrode the approved initiative, or Republican officials manipulated the ballot-measure process to deny the will of the voters. Had those voters’ wishes been respected, the constraints on gerrymandering facing blue and red states would be more closely balanced, the risk of an arms race would be contained, and Democrats would not be threatening to unwind two decades’ worth of progress toward fairer maps.”

Share this:

“The gerrymandering battle has a historical precedent. It’s a warning we should heed.”

Alex Keyssar oped in The Boston Globe:

The framers of the Constitution — assembling in 1787, a time when political parties did not exist — chose to leave it to the state Legislatures to decide how to select presidential electors. Although, as later explained by James Madison, choosing electors through district elections within each state “was mostly, if not exclusively in view when the Constitution was framed,” the final document permitted states to experiment and develop their own systems.

In the first presidential elections, some states did indeed hold district elections to choose electors, others preferred statewide general ticket (winner-take-all) elections, and still others chose to dispense with popular elections and let their Legislatures pick the electors — which unsurprisingly resulted in all of a state’s electoral votes being cast for the same candidate. Numerous states changed their method of selection from one election to the next; some developed hybrid systems.

But political parties were taking shape rapidly in the 1790s, and the experiments in electoral design were soon engulfed by partisan interests, both Federalist and Democratic-Republican. Parties that confidently controlled the Legislature in each state increasingly opted for methods of choosing electors that would deliver all of a state’s electoral votes to their candidates.

The triumph of partisanship over principle was vividly played out in the key state of Virginia in the 1800 presidential election. That year’s bitterly contested election pitted Federalist John Adams against the Democratic-Republican, Thomas Jefferson; it was a rematch of the 1796 election, which Adams had won by only three electoral votes. One of those Adams votes had come from a Virginian, who was elected to his post thanks to the commonwealth’s use of a district system.

Virginia’s Republicans, who dominated state politics, had long expressed a preference for district elections as the method that would yield results that best reflected the views of a diverse people. But they were also determined to elect Jefferson, and the Legislature consequently decided to switch to the “general ticket” in the 1800 election — to prevent Adams from picking up any electoral votes in the nation’s largest state. (To no one’s surprise, Massachusetts then retaliated, switching to legislative selection of electors, to bolster the candidacy of Adams, its native son.)

The Virginia Legislature’s decision was controversial, widely denounced as an unprincipled surrender to the ignoble spirit of “faction.” John Marshall, a Virginia native and soon to become chief justice of the United States, found the Legislature’s action to be so distasteful that he vowed to never vote again in a presidential election as long as the general ticket was in place.

Notably, Republicans in the Legislature acknowledged the legitimacy of the criticism: They defended what they had done on the pragmatic grounds that many Federalist states were already utilizing winner-take-all elections and that it would thus be foolish for Virginia to disadvantage its preferred candidate by doing otherwise. In a formal statement, the Legislature declared that such partisan maneuvers were warranted “until some uniform mode for choosing a President … shall be prescribed by an amendment to the Constitution.” Virginia, in effect, would act in a principled manner once all states were doing so….

Share this:

Announcing the Safeguarding Democracy Project’s Fall Lineup of Events and Webinars, Focused on the Fairness and Integrity of the 2026 Midterms

The Risk of Federal Interference in the 2026 Midterm Elections

Tuesday, September 16, 12:15pm-1:15pm PT, Webinar

Register here.

Ben Haiman, UVA Center for Public Safety and Justice, Liz Howard, NYU Law Brennan Center for Justice, and Stephen Richer, Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation, Harvard Kennedy School

Richard L. Hasen, moderator (Director, Safeguarding Democracy Project, UCLA)

UCLA School of Law is a State Bar of California approved MCLE provider. This session is approved for  ​1  hour of MCLE credit. 

Lessons from the 2024 Elections for 2026 and Beyond: A Conversation with Nate Persily

Tuesday, October 7, 12:15pm-1:15pm PT, Room 1337 UCLA Law and online

Register here for in-person. Lunch will be provided.

Register here for Webinar.

Richard L. Hasen, Director, Safeguarding Democracy Project, UCLA and Nate Persily, Stanford Law School

UCLA School of Law is a State Bar of California approved MCLE provider. This session is approved for ​1 hour of MCLE credit.

Redistricting and Re-Redistricting Controversies and the 2026 Elections

Thursday, October 16, 12:15pm-1:15pm PT, Webinar

Register here.

Guy-Uriel Charles, Harvard Law School, Moon Duchin, Director, Data and Democracy Research Initiative, University of Chicago, Michael Li, NYU Law Brennan Center for Justice, and Nicholas Stephanopoulos, Harvard Law School.

Richard L. Hasen, moderator (Director, Safeguarding Democracy Project, UCLA)

UCLA School of Law is a State Bar of California approved MCLE provider. This session is approved for ​1 hour of MCLE credit.

Media, Social Media, and the Changing Election Information Environment in 2026

Thursday, October 30, 12:15pm-1:15pm PT, Webinar

Register here.

Co-sponsored by the Institute for Technology, Law & Policy

Danielle Citron, UVA Law School, Brendan Nyhan, Dartmouth College, and Amy Wilentz, UCI Emerita 

Richard L. Hasen, moderator (Director, Safeguarding Democracy Project, UCLA)

UCLA School of Law is a State Bar of California approved MCLE provider. This session is approved for ​1 hour of MCLE credit.

The Supreme Court, the Voting Rights Act, and the 2026 Elections

Tuesday, November 18, 12:15pm-1:15pm, PT, Webinar

Register here.

Ellen Katz, University of Michigan Law School, Lenny Powell, Native American Rights Fund, and Deuel Ross, Legal Defense Fund

Richard L. Hasen, moderator (Director, Safeguarding Democracy Project, UCLA)

UCLA School of Law is a State Bar of California approved MCLE provider. This session is approved for ​1 hour of MCLE credit.

Share this:

“Democrats face an increasingly frustrated base over redistricting”

Politico:

Democrats are scrambling to keep their nascent crusade against President Donald Trump’s national redistricting push from fizzling out.

House Democrats are considering establishing an organization to raise and spend for their remapping efforts as they look to counter an aggressive Republican move that could determine control of the chamber next year, according to three people granted anonymity to describe private conversations. And House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries has privately discussed redistricting with blue-state governors, according to another person.

The Center for American Progress is urging blue states to abandon their independent redistricting commissions. And, through private strategy sessions and public appeals, Texas House Democratic Caucus Chair Gene Wu is asking Democrats across red and blue states to take a no-holds-barred approach to resisting GOP redistricting. Democratic National Committee Chair Ken Martin praised Wu during a meeting in Minneapolis last week for “igniting a national movement within this party.”

“This is an all-out call to arms,” Wu, who helped lead Texas Democrats’ quorum break, said in an interview. “That chorus of ‘everyone needs to get off their ass and do something’ is growing louder and louder. And more and more elected Democrats who are seen as doing nothing — their commitment to our country is going to be questioned.”…

Share this: