voting rights

Sen. Andrew Sherwood to pursue universal (automatic) voter registration

by

Voting-RightsThe Arizona Capitol Times reported this week that Sen. Andrew Sherwood, D-Tempe, will file a bill in January for universal (automatic) voter registration in Arizona. Automatic voter registration bill faces uphill climb – again.

Sherwood filed a bill last January, but “it didn’t receive a committee assignment in the House until one of the final days of session in March, when it was assigned to the House Rules Committee as a procedural maneuver necessary for adjournment.”

Arizona Secretary of State Michele Reagan is generally opposed to automatic voter registration, and “Sherwood’s bill stands little chance of approval by the Republican-controlled Arizona Legislature, or Republican Gov. Doug Ducey.”

I have advocated for universal (automatic) voter registration for years, so I will offer Senator Sherwood the same advice I have offered to Democratic legislators who want to actually accomplish what they propose. Arizona is an autocratic one-party control state. The GOP legislature will not pass, let alone consider a Democratic bill, unless it has Republican sponsors and the Republicans want it to pass. This is not the case with election reforms that expand the franchise to vote.

Democrats have no choice but to follow the two-track method to accomplish anything: file the bill in the legislature, and file a citizens initiative with the Secretary of State, then start circulating petitions and collecting signatures.

Read more

Oral argument in Evenwel v. Abbott

by

SupremeCourtThe U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in Evenwel v. Abbott on Tuesday, the Texas “one person, one vote” case. The transcript of the oral argument is here (.pdf).

There has been some very good analysis of the oral argument, which I have collected at length below.

Let’s begin with Lyle Denniston at SCOTUSblog, Argument analysis: The choice — be bold or practical:

The argument in Evenwel v. Abbott involves as fundamental an issue for a democracy as can be imagined:  is everyone represented in elected governments, or are those eligible to vote entitled to special influence and the political power making that possible?  The reason that such a choice is just now arising is that it is controlled by the half-century-old constitutional principle of “one person, one vote,” but the Supreme Court has never specified how to measure that equality.

Read more

Preview of Evenwel v. Abbott

by

The issue presented in Evenwel v. Abbott is:

SupremeCourt“Issue: Whether the three-judge district court correctly held that the “one-person, one-vote” principle under the Equal Protection Clause allows States to use total population, and does not require States to use voter population, when apportioning state legislative districts.”

The case will be argued before the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday, the same day that the Court hears oral argument in the redistricting case from Arizona, Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (see previous post).

Garrett Epps at The Atlantic has a preview. Who Gets to Be Represented in Congress?

Ideally, litigants come to appellate courts with a problem the courts can solve.  Sometimes, though, they bring solutions in search of a problem the courts can create. The plaintiffs in Evenwel v. Abbott have gone even further: Their case brings the U.S. Supreme Court a problem and asks the Court to create more problems, with no solution in sight. They want the Court to completely upend the current system of drawing legislative districts—in a way that would give more power to conservative voters and candidates. Beyond that, they are asking the Court to adopt a new constitutional rule with no constitutional provision attached.

Read more

Preview of Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission

by

The issues presented in Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission are:

SupremeCourtIssues: (1) Whether the desire to gain partisan advantage for one political party justifies intentionally creating over-populated legislative districts that results in tens of thousands of individual voters being denied Equal Protection because their individual votes are devalued, violating the one-person, one-vote principle; and (2) whether the desire to obtain favorable preclearance review by the Justice Department permits the creation of legislative districts that deviate from the one-person, one-vote principle, and, even if creating unequal districts to obtain preclearance approval was once justified, whether this is still a legitimate justification after Shelby County v. Holder. [This is a retroactive application argument.]

The case will be argued before the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday, the same day that the Court hears oral argument in the “one person, one vote” case from Texas, Evenwel v. Abbott. “Issue: Whether the three-judge district court correctly held that the “one-person, one-vote” principle under the Equal Protection Clause allows States to use total population, and does not require States to use voter population, when apportioning state legislative districts.”

Read more

9th Circuit Court of Appeals strikes down Tucson’s electoral system, appeal to follow

by

TucsonBack in May, the U.S. District Court upheld Tucson’s electoral system. The Republican plaintiffs appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

On Tuesday, a week after the Tucson mayor and council election, the Ninth Circuit ruled 2-1 in favor of the plaintiffs, the first time since voters enacted the electoral system in the Tucson City Charter in 1930 that someone has successfully challenged the electoral system in court. Tucson’s electoral system has passed muster in numerous legal challenges and DOJ preclearance reviews under the Voting Rights Act in the past.

Here is the Ninth Circuit opinion (.pdf) in Public Integrity Alliance v City of Tucson, 15-16142.

The local reporting on this case is lacking in analysis. It does not appear that anyone has actually read the opinion past the headnotes of the case, and threw in some quotes from the litigants and political party officials. Pro Tip: actually read the case including the dissent, which in this case is the far better reasoned opinion than the majority opinion (albeit with some minor errors in citation). The dissenting opinion should instruct the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals sitting en banc and/or the U.S. Supreme Court.

Read more