The last time Texas engaged in mid-decade re-redistricting, back in 2006, I filed an amicus brief in the Supreme Court for myself, Burt Neuborne, and Sam Issacharoff. Our brief urged the Court to hold that states have no power under the Elections Clause to engage in mid-decade redistricting absent court order (or possibly extraordinary circumstances).

We argued that if states were permitted to do so, it would likely trigger a retaliatory set of responses in other states:

“Moreover, were mid-decade redistricting to be permitted, the political parties would inevitably engage in retaliatory re-redistricting — particularly when partisan control of the House is closely divided. In the dormant commerce clause context, this Court recognized long ago that the appropriate means to address discriminatory state commercial laws was not for states to enact retaliatory discriminatory laws of their own; instead, this Court declares such laws unconstitutional, lest a downward spiral of retaliation, in which national prosperity is drained, ensue. See C & A Carbone, Inc. v. Town of Clarkstown, 511 U.S. 383, 390 (1994) (condemning “local economic protectionism, laws that would excite those jealousies and retaliatory measures that the Constitution was de- signed to prevent. See THE FEDERALIST NO. 22 143-145 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961) (A. Hamilton); James Madison, Vices of the Political System of the United States, in 2 WRITINGS OF JAMES MADISON 362-363 (G. Hunt ed. 1901).”). The Court should instead stop this cycle in its inception by recognizing that the Constitution does not authorize states to engage in mid-decade redistricting, at least absent judicial compulsion or extraordinary circumstance.”

We also pointed out that there was no history and practice of mid-decade redistricting in the 20th century and that absent any judicial constraints, but was emerging in this era for specific reasons:

“No constitutional compulsion — indeed, no legal compulsion of any sort — exists for state legislatures to engage in redistricting during the decade as partisan political prospects wax and wane in particular states. Indeed, nothing in our historical experience compels this extraordinary assumption of power by the state legislatures. In the 20th century, there had been no practice of mid-decade congressional redistricting of which we are aware before mid-decade redistricting efforts suddenly erupted this decade. Rather, the emergence of this practice results from a combination of (1) closely balanced partisan control of the House and (2) technological breakthroughs in election data bases and computer technology that enable “perfecting” the self-interested creation of overwhelmingly safe districts. The partisan margin of power in the House has hung in the balance for a more sustained period than at any time over the past 100 years; when partisan control was last divided as closely, numerous state legislative schemes sprung up to manipulate congressional elections.²⁰ National legislation and constitutional law now prohibit most of the offending historical practices, such as legislative manipulations of suffrage rules and vote fraud. But given the allure of political power, efforts to invent new practices not yet prohibited — such as mid-decade redistricting — will inevitably arise again when partisan control of the House is at stake.”
 

Rather than arguing for this position under the Equal Protection Clause, we argued the Court should recognize the Elections Clause as an enumerated power. Just as the Court had been enforcing limits on Congress’ enumerated powers since the 1990s, we argued the Court should enforce limits on the enumerated power state legislatures have to draw congressional districts.

Washington Post:

Attorney General Pam Bondi has ordered a grand jury investigation into allegations that Obama administration officials broke federal laws while investigating Russia’s involvement in the 2016 election, according to a person familiar with the matter, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the ongoing probe.

The Justice Department declined to comment on the investigation, and it remained unclear whether prosecutors had settled on specific targets or crimes they believe occurred.
Still, the development marked a significant escalation in the Justice Department’s push to relitigate one of President Donald Trump’s long-standing grievances and comes as critics have argued those efforts are an attempt by the White House to use the department to punish Trump’s political foes.

Politico:

A federal appeals court has ruled that Texas may enforce a state law that invalidates mail-in ballots submitted without a voter’s state identification number or partial Social Security number.

A three-judge panel of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled unanimously that the requirement the Texas Legislature enacted in 2021 as part of an election-integrity bill known as SB1 did not violate a federal law preventing states from imposing voting requirements “not material” to the validity of ballots.

In a brusque, nine-page opinion, Judge James Ho twice said the appeals panel had “little difficulty” concluding that Texas’ law was valid.

“The number-matching requirements are obviously designed to confirm that every mail-in voter is who he claims he is,” Ho wrote for the panel. “And that is plainly material to determining whether an individual is qualified to vote.”

The judges said that merely requiring applications to list the voter’s name and address was insufficient to address security concerns.

“That information is easily available to anyone who simply requests it,” wrote Ho, a Trump appointee. “As a result, any person can request and receive that information about a registered voter, use that information to apply for a mail-in ballot, and then cast the ballot, with minimal risk of detection.”

Washington Post: Over four months, I’ve drafted 65 notes debunking conspiracy theories on topics ranging from airplane crashes to Ben & Jerry’s ice cream. I’ve tried to flag fake artificial intelligence-generated video clips, viral hoax security threats and false… Continue reading

New Hampshire Statesman For New Hampshire disability rights advocates, the slate of election-related bills signed by Gov. Kelly Ayotte last week represents a mixed bag.  On the one hand, Ayotte signed bipartisan legislation to require that all cities and towns… Continue reading

New York Times: [A]s far as they are from the political action this week, towns like Laredo along the Southwestern border are crucial to Republicans’ plans to flip five of Texas’ U.S. House seats from blue to red. Texas… Continue reading

Politico: Former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is ready to campaign against a partisan gerrymandering plan that current officeholder Gavin Newsom is hoping to place on the November ballot, according to a spokesperson. “He calls gerrymandering evil, and he means that.… Continue reading

Politico:   California’s Texas-thwarting gerrymander has swiftly transformed from fantasy to reality. Democrats in the House and the state Legislature are coalescing around a plan to draw a half-dozen Republican incumbents into oblivion — and persuade California voters to approve… Continue reading

Politico: About two-dozen Texas Democrats huddled around a monitor inside a hotel auditorium just west of Chicago Monday to watch as their Republican colleagues gaveled back into session and threatened “consequences” for their mass departure. Minutes later, as they… Continue reading

Interesting new study here. Abstract: In seven studies, we investigated how reporting partial vote counts influences perceptions of election legitimacy. Beliefs in election fraud, as in the 2020 U.S. presidential election, may be fueled by the cumulative redundancy bias… Continue reading