After weeks of internal talks and a pressure campaign by President Donald Trump, Missouri Gov. Mike Kehoe on Friday called lawmakers into a special session beginning next week to redraw the state’s congressional maps.
With a long holiday weekend looming, Kehoe issued a press release in the late afternoon to reveal news that along with redistricting, he wants lawmakers to make it harder for residents to alter the state Constitution via the ballot process.
“Today, I am calling on the General Assembly to take action on congressional redistricting and initiative petition reform to ensure our districts and Constitution truly put Missouri values first,” the governor said. “This is about clarity for voters and ownership of our future, and I hope the legislature will work together to pass our Missouri First Map and critically needed IP reform.”
Category Archives: direct democracy
California: “Republicans again ask Supreme Court to stop Democratic redistricting”
California Republicans today filed a second writ petition — Sanchez v. Weber — in the Supreme Court seeking to prevent the electorate from voting in November to temporarily redraw the state’s congressional districts.
The court denied the first petition last week, two days after it was filed, but before enactment of the legislation necessary to put the redistricting proposal on the ballot. The petition had asked for immediate action to stop the Legislature from acting. The court declined to stop the Legislature from voting, but seemed to leave open today’s second petition, apparently saying the first petition was premature.
Today’s petition asks the Supreme Court to keep off the November ballot ACA 8, the Legislature’s proposed constitutional amendment for temporary redistricting. It requests a court decision — with or without a hearing — in two weeks, by September 8. I do not see in the petition why September 8 is a critical date. The only reference to that day on the California Secretary of State’s web page of key dates for the November special election is: “Translations of Ballot Label and Ballot Title and Summary Available for Public Display” “August 31–September 8, 2025.”
Today’s petition reprises the lone argument made in the first, that the Legislature acted too quickly on the redistricting bills, in violation of California Constitution article IV, section 8(a). But it also alleges ACA 8 violates other state constitutional provisions — the separate-vote requirement of article XVIII, section 1; and the Citizens Redistricting Commission provisions and the once-a-decade-redistricting limitations of article XXI. The petition doesn’t mention how these arguments might be affected by the ACA 8 provision that the changes it makes are “notwithstanding any other provision of [California’s] Constitution or existing law.”
“Florida election law dealt blow as judge rules noncitizen petition ban unconstitutional”
In a victory for immigrants and advocacy groups, a federal judge has provisionally blocked enforcement of a Florida elections law that prohibited noncitizens from collecting signatures for citizen-led ballot initiatives.
U.S. District Judge Mark Walker, in a 28-page ruling, temporarily struck down part of a controversial measure Republicans pushed to passage this year (HB 1205) that empowered state officials to enforce citizenship requirements on ballot initiative collectors.
Walker’s decision, a preliminary injunction order, stops Florida’s 20 State Attorneys from prosecuting Smart & Safe Florida, the organization behind last year’s failed Amendment 3 effort to legalize recreational cannabis, and its non-resident petition circulators.
Essentially, Smart & Safe’s hundreds of non-resident workers can resume collecting signatures for its current cannabis legalization ballot initiative without fear of criminal charges.
The Thursday ruling also blocked enforcement of the citizenship ban against Washington-based nonprofit Poder Latinx, the organization’s noncitizen members and two lawful permanent residents, Yivian Lopez Garcia and Humberto Orjuela Prieto….
“California voters will decide redistricting in November, escalating battle with Trump and Texas”
Ratcheting up the pressure in the escalating national fight over control of Congress, the California Legislature on Thursday approved a November special election to ask voters to redraw the state’s electoral lines to favor Democrats and thwart President Trump’s far-right policy agenda.
The ballot measure, pushed by Gov. Gavin Newsom and other state and national Democratic leaders, is the latest volley in a national political brawl over electoral maps that could alter the outcome of the 2026 midterm elections and the balance of power in the U.S. House of Representatives.
If voters approve the redrawn lines on Nov. 4, Democrats in the Golden State would see the odds tilted further in their favor, while the number of California Republicans in the House could be halved.
Newsom initially said that new electoral districts in California would only take effect if another state redrew its lines before 2031. But after Texas moved toward approving its own maps this week that could give the GOP five more House seats, Democrats stripped the so-called “trigger” language from the amendment — meaning that if voters approve the measure, the new lines would take effect no matter what.
The ballot measure language, which asks California voters to override the power of the independent redistricting commission, was approved by most Democrats in the Assembly and the Senate, where they hold supermajorities.
California lawmakers have the power to place constitutional amendments on the statewide ballot without the approval of the governor. Newsom, however, is expected later Thursday to sign two separate bills that fund the special election and spell out the lines for the new congressional districts.,,,
“Obama applauds Newsom’s California redistricting plan as ‘responsible’ as Texas GOP pushes new maps”
Former President Barack Obama has waded into states’ efforts at rare mid-decade redistricting efforts, saying he agrees with California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s response to alter his state’s congressional maps, in the way of Texas redistricting efforts promoted by President Donald Trump aimed at shoring up Republicans’ position in next year’s elections.
“I believe that Gov. Newsom’s approach is a responsible approach. He said this is going to be responsible. We’re not going to try to completely maximize it,” Obama said at a Tuesday fundraiser on Martha’s Vineyard in Massachusetts, according to excerpts obtained by The Associated Press. “We’re only going to do it if and when Texas and/or other Republican states begin to pull these maneuvers. Otherwise, this doesn’t go into effect.”
While noting that “political gerrymandering” is not his “preference,” Obama said that, if Democrats “don’t respond effectively, then this White House and Republican-controlled state governments all across the country, they will not stop, because they do not appear to believe in this idea of an inclusive, expansive democracy.”
“Supreme Court denies Republicans’ effort to stop California redistricting . . . for now”
This afternoon, the Supreme Court denied the original writ petition — filed Monday (see here) — by four Republican state legislators seeking to prevent the super-majority Democratic Legislature from enacting bills that would allow for the temporary redrawing of the state’s congressional districts.
But that is likely not the final word on the topic. I don’t read the denial as a decision on the petition’s merits.
The court’s denial order in the case — Strickland v. Weber — says, “Petitioners have failed to meet their burden of establishing a basis for relief at this time under California Constitution article IV, section 8.”
The key words, I believe, are “at this time.” The petition sought to prevent voting on redistricting bills, alleging action on the bills violate article IV, section 8(a), which generally prohibits action on legislation “until the 31st day after the bill is introduced.” But, when the petition was filed, and when the court denied the petition, the Legislature hadn’t voted on the bills. Those votes are expected tomorrow (Thursday).
If, as seems likely, the Legislature enacts the bills and Governor Gavin Newsom signs them, petitioners will then have a stronger argument that they have “[met] their burden of establishing a basis for relief . . . under California Constitution article IV, section 8.” But, until then, the lack of definitive positive action on the bills probably, in the justices’ eyes, renders premature a claim of a section 8 violation….
“Republicans say they’ll sue to block California redistricting plan. Do they have a case?”
Bob Egelko for the SF Chronicle:
“By concocting this partisan redistricting scam, Gavin Newsom and Democrat politicians are openly violating the California Constitution and their oath of office,” DeMaio said in a news release. “Any vote … on this corrupt plan would be unlawful and unconstitutional.”
He argued that the state Constitution, under a ballot measure approved by the voters in 2008, allows only a bipartisan commission to draw district lines and does not permit them to be redrafted for political purposes.
The National Republican Congressional Committee also said Newsom’s plan would be challenged in court as well as the ballot box. Newsom “is shredding California’s Constitution and disenfranchising voters to prop up his Presidential ambitions,” Rep. Richard Hudson, R-N.C., chair of the committee, said on X.
But Rick Hasen, a professor of law and political science at UCLA who has written widely on election law issues, said the Legislature can ask California voters to change the state Constitution by placing an amendment on the ballot with two-thirds majority votes in each house. Newsom and legislative Democrats introduced their measure on Monday.
“If it’s a constitutional amendment approved by voters, then there is no state law problem with amending the earlier constitutional amendment,” Hasen said….
Another election law professor, Justin Levitt of Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, who was a national policy adviser for democracy and voting rights under President Joe Biden, said DeMaio was correct that the California Constitution currently prohibits legislators from redrawing district lines.
“But that’s exactly why the Legislature is proposing a constitutional amendment,” Levitt said. “And I’m not aware of any limitation on the Legislature to propose such an amendment for the voters to consider.”…
Hasen of UCLA said Newsom’s proposal might be challenged on other legal grounds, such as the rule limiting California ballot measures to a single subject. But he said opponents’ strongest argument would probably be a political one – that the voters should reject a plan to suspend the nonpartisan redistricting program they approved 17 years ago.
DeMaio appeared to agree on Monday.
“If we stop it in court, fine,” he said at a press conference in the state Capitol. “But more than likely it will have to be stopped at the ballot box.”…
“Democrats’ Proposed New California Map Puts Five GOP Seats in Danger”
As Texas Republicans appear poised to thwart Democrats’ brief quorum break and pass a brutal new gerrymander, California Democrats’ plans to retaliate with their own aggressive map are coming into view.
Democrats’ California proposal is a mirror image of Republicans’ Texas plan in the sense that it flips three of the other party’s seats into solid Democratic pickups and makes two other GOP seats much more winnable, though still competitive. The plan would also shore up support for Democrats in the state’s competitive blue-held districts, including two rated as Toss Up and two rated as Lean Democrat by the Cook Political Report.
But unlike in Texas, where the GOP legislature can draw the state’s map however and whenever it wants, Gov. Gavin Newsom and Democrats in Sacramento must first convince voters to permit them to enact a gerrymander — something that’s far from guaranteed….
“[County Executive] Sam Page indicted on election and theft charges over St. Louis County proposition mailer”
STLPR reports:
A St. Louis County grand jury on Wednesday indicted County Executive Sam Page on charges involving the use of public money to campaign against Proposition B ahead of the April election.
The measure would have allowed the St. Louis County Council to fire certain department heads with five of seven votes. Six of the council’s seven members are generally combative with Page.
The county sent out a mailer in the weeks leading up to the election outlining consequences of the issue. The front of the mailer listed groups that opposed Proposition B and included wording from a court ruling ordering a change in the language appearing on the ballot. The “paid for” line said St. Louis County.
…
State law forbids any elected official to spend public funds to campaign for or against a ballot measure. Page faces two misdemeanor election offenses and two counts of felony theft “by deceit” over the spending of county money.
Page has said the mailer was informational only and did not advocate a position.
UCLA Voting Rights Project Experts Argue, Wrongly in My View, that the California Legislature Could Engage in Re-Redistricting California’s Congressional Districts without Voter Approval
What a difference half a day makes.
Contrary to the earlier reporting from Politico that California Democrats might try to call a special election to get voter approval for a Democratic gerrymander of congressional districts (to counter the expected Texas Republican gerrymander), the latest from Politico suggests that Democrats may try to re-redistrict through ordinary legislation. I don’t think they have the power to do so, given the unequivocal language taking away that power from the Legislature in two voter initiatives amending the state constitution to establish a redistricting commission and to apply it to both state legislative and congressional redistricting. (In California, voter initiated ballot measures can only be amended by another vote of the people, unless the measure provides otherwise.)
Here’s the latest from Politico:
Call it the Fleetwood Mac option: California lawmakers could go their own way on a Democratic gerrymandering bid.
Redistricting experts have been briefing elections committee staff in the Legislature on a redraw strategy that would enlarge Democrats’ House margin without voter approval, Playbook has learned. That would avert an expensive and uncertain special election — saving Newsom and allies money for other ballot battles — but it would push Democratic lawmakers into uncharted legal terrain.
Voters bequeathed California its independent House redistricting commission in 2010, and because only voters can substantially amend ballot initiatives once they’ve passed, they may need to sign off on Newsom’s plan to redraw a few California House Republicans into oblivion.
Or they may not.
Newsom has argued there’s another option: simply having the Legislature craft new maps. He’s noted that California’s constitution is silent on mid-decade redistricting (as opposed to the once-a-decade commission process linked to the Census). Now UCLA Voting Rights Project experts are bolstering that argument to the Legislature.
Their legal analysis, shared exclusively with POLITICO after it was presented to legislative staffers this week, argues the Legislature “has the legal constitutional authority to draw new districts today” if it deems it “appropriate” — as Newsom and other Democrats have argued.
None of this means the Legislature will decide to circumvent voters. Attorney General Rob Bonta suggested yesterday that the cleanest route would be lawmakers putting a new map on the ballot. That would give Democrats political cover and help inoculate them from the legal challenge that would inevitably follow if the Legislature simply goes it alone — a path that could end in an embarrassing court rebuke.
The legal analysis engages in a kind of wooden textualism which I think is not in line with either the plain text of these ballot measures as a whole nor the clear purpose of both statutes to take the matter away of redistricting away from the state legislature. And I don’t think California courts will buy it if the Legislature takes this gambit.
There is an argument that fairness in congressional redistricting needs to be considered on a national basis, and that Democratic tit-for-tat gerrymanders to counter Republican gerrymanders are otherwise justified. I’m not endorsing that argument nor rejecting it. I’m saying that as far as California goes, there is a clean way to do it, as AG Bonta suggested, is taking the matter back to the voters. And I think that’s the right way to do it. Let the voters decide.
(Note: Although I am at UCLA, I have no role with the UCLA Voting Rights Project and had no hand in this memo.)
Ellen Katz: “Redistricting Texas Now is Illegal and the U.S. Department of Justice is the Reason Why”
Ellen Katz has posted this draft on SSRN. Here is the abstract:
The U.S. Department of Justice sent a letter to the Texas Governor and Attorney General that claims four Texas congressional districts violate the Voting Rights Act and the Constitution. The letter seemingly demands that Texas alter the racial makeup of those districts. This short essay shows why the legal claims set forth in the DOJ letter are incorrect and why Texas would violate both the VRA and the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause were it to change its districting map to target these four districtsin response to the DOJ letter.
“Maine Supreme Judicial Court upholds voter ID ballot question language”
Maine’s highest court has OK’d the language of a voter identification referendum question that highlights other substantial changes the reform would make to state voting laws….
The Dinner Table PAC launched the campaign in April 2024 as an effort to require voters to show photo identification at the polls. However, the official five-page petition submitted to the state in January seeks to change additional aspects of Maine election law, such as absentee voting.
Secretary of State Shenna Bellows called the petition “a wolf in sheep’s clothing” when it was first submitted to the state. When Bellows released the wording for the question that will appear on the November ballot, it encompassed the changes beyond photo ID requirements.
It will read: “Do you want to change Maine election laws to eliminate two days of absentee voting, prohibit requests for absentee ballots by phone or family members, end ongoing absentee voter status for seniors and people with disabilities, ban prepaid postage on absentee ballot return envelopes, limit the number of drop boxes, require voters to show certain photo ID before voting, and make other changes to our elections?”…
In its decision, issued Friday, the [Maine Supreme Judicial Court] noted that the language accurately reflected the proposed legislation and used terms that would be clear to an informed voter.
Montana Plan is not Without Its Skeptics
Earlier this week, I blogged about a new initiative in Montana that seeks to rein in corporate political spending by amending the state’s constitution to limit the powers conferred on corporations. In a new article for the local Independent Record, Brad Smith, chairman of the Institute for Free Speech and a former commissioner for the Federal Election Commission, dismissed the plan as unserious: “the state cannot condition a benefit (in this case, the right to incorporate) on citizens giving up their constitutional rights.”
Meanwhile, our very own, Rick Hasen, despite his general sympathy for regulating money in politics, told reporters he was “skeptical of the legal strategy behind this maneuver, given the incredible skepticism of the Supreme Court about the constitutionality of regulating corporate political spending.” I agree.
Still, he emphasized:
“There is a political benefit in pushing such a measure and in galvanizing public support against the Supreme Court’s damaging approach to issues of money in politics. . . .
Passing such a measure and having the Court strike it down is a way of reminding the public that the Supreme Court is the entity standing in the way of achieving a fair balance between robust political competition and not allowing the ultra-wealthy to have disproportionate political power in society.”
Jeff Clements, a major advocate of both overturning Citizens United and this new plan, also sought to rein in the idea that the Montana Plan would solve all our money in politics problems (for those who agree they exist).
“While the Montana Plan would help, he said, he also pointed out that billionaires would still be able to spend huge sums of money, another feature of the Citizens United decision.”
This is a point that Rick and I have both made before.
New Montana Initiative Seeks to Use Corporate Law to Restrain Corporate Political Spending
Veteran election leaders today unveiled “The Montana Plan,” a ballot initiative that seeks to eliminate corporate and dark money from Montana politics without running afoul of Citizens United. The initiative would amend Montana’s constitution to prohibit the state from granting corporations it creates the power to spend in politics. Today, Montana, like most states, grants its corporations every power held by an individual to do all things necessary or convenient to carry out its business and affairs. The initiative if passed would change that to eliminate the power to spend in politics.
Proponents argue, “This is authority every state possesses but no state has used in more than a century.”
But what about out-of-state corporations? Well, Montana law already limits corporations chartered in other states to the same set of powers that Montana-chartered corporations hold. Thus, were Montana to limit its own corporations’ political spending, the restriction would automatically apply to out-of-state corporations.
Intriguing. The Montana Plan is being sponsored by the Transparent Election Initiative, a Montana-based nonprofit organization.