A redistricting dispute initially resolved in favor of two citizens has been reversed in favor of the local Madison County government after the Indiana Court of Appeals found that an ordinance meant to more evenly distribute the population did not run afoul of the controlling redistricting statute. The ruling comes as Indiana prepares for the 2020 election season.
Indiana lawmakers returned to the Statehouse this week after deadlines last week on advancing bills for action during the second half of this year’s legislative session.
Critics of how Indiana politicians dice up the state for congressional and legislative districts know they are running out of time for changing that process with the once-a-decade U.S. census less than three months away.
Redistricting reform advocates are taking a slightly different approach at the Republican-controlled Indiana Legislature this year, as they make more transparency the priority ahead of lines being redrawn in 2021.
With the start of the 2020 legislative session about a month away, party leaders are formulating their plans for the short session, with teacher pay continuing to be a point of contention.
The fight over Michigan’s redistricting, litigated in part by a team from the Indianapolis office of Faegre Baker Daniels, ended Monday with an order from the U.S. Supreme Court vacating a lower court’s ruling that gerrymandering based on political affiliation violates the Constitution.
The release of emails in the gerrymandering lawsuit brought by the League of Women Voters spurred Michigan residents to strip their legislators of redistricting duties and turn the mapmaking over to an independent commission. However, a new federal lawsuit is challenging the new body, asserting the exclusion of certain individuals violates the First and 14th amendments.
For a team of Indiana lawyers who successfully litigated a case contesting partisan gerrymandering in Michigan, a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision was a disappointment that likely will vacate the judgment in their favor. Legal observers say the issue now will be fought in statehouses across the country.
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled federal courts have no role to play in policing political districts drawn for partisan gain. The decision could embolden political line-drawing for partisan gain when state lawmakers undertake the next round of redistricting after the 2020 census.
Attorneys who gained a federal ruling to throw out Ohio’s congressional map are asking the U.S. Supreme Court to let procedures move forward to redraw House districts.
The Supreme Court’s conservative majority sounded wary Tuesday of allowing federal judges to determine when electoral maps are too partisan, despite strong evidence that the political parties drew districts to guarantee congressional election outcomes.
Last year, proponents of limiting partisan politics in the creation of electoral districts needed to win over Justice Anthony Kennedy. They couldn’t.
An Indiana bill that would change the state’s redistricting rules doesn’t do enough to end gerrymandering, critics say. The bill sponsored by Republican Sen. Greg Walker of Columbus would allow lawmakers to continue drawing the state’s legislative and congressional district maps for the foreseeable future.
Federal judges on Monday affirmed their earlier decision striking North Carolina’s congressional districts as unconstitutional because Republicans drew them with excessive partisanship. The Tarheel State is one of several in which lawsuits are challenging partisan gerrymandering.
When presented with one of the most consequential cases of the 2017 term, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments, then heard more oral arguments before issuing an opinion in mid-June that essentially sidestepped the issue.
The U.S. Supreme Court is resolving partisan redistricting cases from Wisconsin and Maryland without ruling on the broader issue of whether electoral maps can give an unfair advantage to a political party.
The Supreme Court of the United States has already heard a major case about political line-drawing that has the potential to reshape American politics. Now, before even deciding that one, the court is taking up another similar case.
Attorneys at Faegre Baker Daniels LLP are part of the legal team representing Michigan voters who filed a complaint in December over partisan gerrymandering. The suit brought to seven the number of such challenges filed since 2016 and fueled hope that the U.S. Supreme Court will rule the practice unconstitutional and offer guidance for how to draw district lines.
An Indiana Senate panel has advanced a bill what would set criteria for redrawing electoral districts. But the measure approved on an 8-0 vote Monday fell far short of a comprehensive redistricting overhaul that good government groups have sought for years.
The U.S. Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal from the Texas Democratic Party charging that the Republican-controlled Legislature illegally gerrymandered the state’s electoral maps.