Leading Off
● North Carolina North Carolina Republican legislators passed a new congressional map (shown here) along party lines on Friday, over objections from Democrats. Because Democratic Gov. Roy Cooper lacks the constitutional authority to veto congressional redistricting, this new map is now law, but plaintiffs in an ongoing lawsuit over the lines are challenging the new map in court.
Campaign Action
A state court issued a preliminary injunction late last month blocking election officials from preparing to administer the 2020 election using Republicans' existing gerrymander, but the court didn’t actually strike down the map as unconstitutional, and that case is still proceeding on the merits. However, the court strongly suggested that lawmakers should pass a new map. Now that Republicans have done so, the plaintiffs are focusing their challenge on this new map. Should they prevail, the court could draw its own map.
Knowing that they risk losing on the merits, Republicans are likely to continue arguing that it's too late to replace the map they just enacted, since the candidate filing period for the March 2020 primary will begin on Dec. 2. (Republicans filed a separate federal lawsuit to argue this precise claim.) However, when their original congressional gerrymander was struck down for racial discrimination against black voters in 2016, it was redrawn in February of that year, and officials simply delayed the primary, meaning there is likely still sufficient time for the court to impose a fairer alternative.
As for each of the GOP's districts themselves, we've calculated the results of all statewide elections from 2004-2018, 2016 primary turnout by race and party, racial demographics of adult citizens, and educational attainment rates for adults for every district.
Analyzing these statistics, we find that the map likely locks in an 8-to-5 Republican majority, with five districts that backed Hillary Clinton in 2016 and eight that supported Trump, few of which give Democrats any chance at an upset. Democrats would be heavy favorites to flip two GOP seats: Rep. George Holding's 2nd District in Raleigh and Rep. Mark Walker's 6th District in the Piedmont Triad, both of which voted for Clinton by more than 20 points.
Confirming that the map is a gerrymander, GOP state Sen. Jerry Tillman spoke on the record and claimed that the process is "set up to be partisan. Do you think we're going to draw Democrat maps? ... We're doing exactly what you all did for 140 years." That admission of partisan intent could aid the plaintiffs in their case.
For more analysis of how this map remains gerrymandered and how an alternative map drawn by Daily Kos Elections' Stephen Wolf could be fairer, please click through to this post.
Meanwhile, on the legislative redistricting front, the North Carolina's Supreme Court refused to expedite an appeal brought by plaintiffs who were seeking to block a handful of districts in the GOP's new state House map that was passed in September. Plaintiffs could instead have filed a traditional appeal with the state's intermediate Court of Appeals, but they announced they would not.
Consequently, North Carolina now has new legislative districts for the 2020 elections after a state court struck down Republicans' 2017 gerrymanders back in September. However, as we've previously demonstrated, these new districts are still gerrymandered effectively enough that they could prevent Democrats from winning majorities next year even if they win a majority of votes—which is exactly what happened in 2018.
This outcome is due in large part to the fact that most Democratic state senators voted for the GOP's Senate map and praised the process even though it gave little real opportunity for public input. The lower court explicitly cited these developments among its reasons for upholding the new maps in October. It's a bitter reminder of why Democrats should never facilitate Republican gerrymandering just because it happens to protect their own district, since doing so can undermine the legal case for fairer elections.
Ballot Measures
● Colorado: Conservatives supporting a ballot initiative that would amend Colorado's constitution to ban noncitizens from voting in state or local elections have filed more than 200,000 signatures, exceeding the roughly 125,000 signatures needed to qualify for the November 2020 ballot. If the measure ultimately takes effect, it would replace constitutional language saying "[e]very citizen ... shall be qualified to vote" with language that says "[o]nly a citizen ... shall be qualified to vote." This would prevent cities from granting voting rights in local elections to authorized immigrants who lack citizenship.
Voter Registration and Voting Access
● California: Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom has vetoed a bill that California's Democratic-run state legislature passed to require that public high schools offer eligible students the opportunity to register to vote or "pre-register" so that they will be added to the rolls when they turn 18. The bill also would have also required those schools to teach students about how the voting process works.
Newsom's justification for the veto was that youth voter turnout is already increasing and that he disfavored a "one-size-fits-all requirement," instead preferring unspecified coordination between the secretary of state and superintendent of public instruction to get young people registered. The bill passed with veto-proof majorities after every Democrat and some Republicans voted for it, but California Democrats have had a long-running tendency not to override gubernatorial vetoes.
Voter Suppression
● Congress: On Wednesday, the House Administration Committee's subcommittee on elections released a report on the state of voting rights and election administration across the country. This report contains extensive evidence of barriers to voting and voter suppression schemes orchestrated by Republicans, especially to the detriment of Native American voters.
This evidence will be used to bolster the legal case for passing a bill restoring the preclearance regime of the Voting Rights Act, which the Supreme Court's conservatives gutted in 2013. Restoring that system would require states with a recent history of voter suppression and discriminatory voting laws to seek Justice Department approval for any proposed changes to election law or procedures.
● Michigan: On Wednesday, the Democratic super PAC Priorities USA filed a new federal lawsuit that seeks to block two laws that restrict who can transport others to the polls and assist with absentee ballot applications. Michigan makes it a misdemeanor to hire someone to drive voters to the polls unless the person being assisted is physically unable to walk. The plaintiffs argue that this law violates the Constitution and federal law permitting hired transportation to the polls, and they also say it was the reason why Michigan was the only state in the nation where Uber didn't offer Election Day discounts last year.
The state also bans non-family members from helping to turn in an absentee ballot request unless the person helping them is a registered voter and the voter requested their assistance. This provision makes it more difficult for campaigns to conduct get-out-the-vote operations, since they are prohibited from offering assistance without it first being requested.
● Texas: A three-judge panel on the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals has overturned a lower court ruling that had required Texas to offer online voter registration when people update their driver's license address online. Texas is one of just a handful of states that don't allow online voter registration.
The plaintiffs contend that the state is violating federal law by allowing voters who update their address to also update their registration in-person but not those who do so online. Under the current system, voters updating their address online can check a box indicating they want to register to vote, but it only sends them to a page with a form they'd have to print out. The plaintiffs argued that this setup is confusing and led to voters thinking they had registered when in fact they had not, preventing them from voting.
The 5th Circuit ruled that the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring the case, finding that they had later successfully registered to vote and were no longer harmed by the system. It's unclear whether the plaintiffs will appeal, but they may face tough odds if this case ultimately makes it to the Supreme Court, whose majority is strongly opposed to voting rights.
Ballot Access
● Florida: On Friday, a federal court struck down a 70-year-old Florida law that gives the governor's party the top position on the ballot in every partisan contest. The court found that the law unconstitutionally disadvantages the party that doesn't hold the governor's office, which for the last two decades has been the Democrats. Past research has shown that the candidate listed first can gain an advantage simply because they appear at the top of the ballot, particularly in less salient elections further down the ticket.
The court ordered election officials to devise a new ballot ordering scheme to remedy the illegal discrimination. However, it's unclear whether Republicans will appeal. Priorities USA, the Democratic super PAC that led this lawsuit, also recently filed similar cases in Arizona, Georgia and Texas.
Elections
● Mississippi: Following his victory in this month's election for secretary of state, incoming Republican Michael Watson said he supports changing Mississippi's Jim Crow-era law that discriminates against black voters in statewide elections. As we've previously explained, this 1890 constitutional provision requires statewide candidates to win a majority of both the popular vote and a majority of state House districts, otherwise the state House picks the winner. Since Republicans gerrymandered the House, Democrats would have to win by a landslide to prevent the GOP House from choosing a Republican.
That law didn't come into play in 2019, since Democrat Jim Hood ultimately lost the governorship by a 52-47 margin to Republican Tate Reeves. However, the law could affect future elections by penalizing Democrats and the black voters who heavily support them. Consequently, the attorney for the black plaintiffs who filed a lawsuit challenging this system earlier this year said that they will continue fighting it in court.
● Monroe County, NY: Republicans have backed down from their plans to strip power from incoming County Executive Adam Bello, the first Democrat to win the post in three decades, after a public outcry. Bello won election to govern Monroe County, which is home to Rochester and over 700,000 residents, earlier this month.
The GOP's aborted power grab would have given their legislative majority the power to veto Bello's appointments for deputy county executive, county attorney, and a number of management positions. It would have also eliminated his power to establish new government positions and adjust salaries, and given the legislature greater oversight of county contracts and purchasing.
This aborted effort to undermine the outcome of an election would have been a frontal assault on democracy, yet Monroe County Republicans were only following in the footsteps of similar GOP power grabs in other states. Most recently, Republicans held lame-duck sessions to strip incoming Democrats of power after the GOP lost the governorships of Michigan and Wisconsin in 2018 and North Carolina in 2016.
A key difference, though, is that New York's state government is run by Democrats, who could have potentially stepped in to thwart the Monroe GOP. However, that these anti-democratic maneuvers are spreading is an ominous sign of what may come after next year's presidential election.
Felony Disenfranchisement
● New Jersey: A committee in New Jersey's heavily Democratic state Assembly has passed a bill along party lines that would end felony disenfranchisement for citizens on parole and probation, meaning only those still incarcerated would be unable to vote. New Jersey currently bans voting for citizens who are still serving any part of their sentence. If this bill becomes law, roughly 74,000 citizens would regain the right to vote according to the Sentencing Project.