From Politico: Obama, Holder to lead post-Trump redistricting campaign The former attorney general heads up a new Democratic effort to challenge the GOP's supremacy in state legislatures and the U.S. House.

We are two years away from the next census - which apportions House seats to the states - and six year away from the next redistricting, which will be done by state legislatures. Democrats seek to undo what Republicans were able to accomplish the last go around.

- Click here for the article.

As Democrats aim to capitalize on this year’s Republican turmoil and start building back their own decimated bench, former Attorney General Eric Holder will chair a new umbrella group focused on redistricting reform—with the aim of taking on the gerrymandering that’s left the party behind in statehouses and made winning a House majority far more difficult.

The new group, called the National Democratic Redistricting Committee, was developed in close consultation with the White House. President Barack Obama himself has now identified the group—which will coordinate campaign strategy, direct fundraising, organize ballot initiatives and put together legal challenges to state redistricting maps—as the main focus of his political activity once he leaves office.

Though initial plans to be active in this year’s elections fell short, the group has been incorporated as a 527, with Democratic Governors Association executive director Elizabeth Pearson as its president and House Majority PAC executive director Ali Lapp as its vice president. They’ve been pitching donors and aiming to put together its first phase action plan for December, moving first in the Virginia and New Jersey state elections next year and with an eye toward coordination across gubernatorial, state legislative and House races going into the 2018 midterms.

“American voters deserve fair maps that represent our diverse communities—and we need a coordinated strategy to make that happen,” Holder said. “This unprecedented new effort will ensure Democrats have a seat at the table to create fairer maps after 2020."

Obama strongly endorsed Holder’s selection, and is planning more involvement in state races this year. But it’s in his post-presidency that redistricting will be a priority for his fundraising and campaigning.

“Where he will be most politically engaged will be at the state legislative level, with an eye on redistricting after 2020,” said White House political director David Simas, who’s been briefing Obama on the group’s progress since it started coming together at the beginning of the summer.

The group’s incorporation follows a pitch made to major donors in Philadelphia during the Democratic convention in July, led by Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe and Connecticut Gov. Dannel Malloy, along with House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee chair Rep. Ben Ray Luján. The group hasn’t filed any financial reports as of yet and isn’t releasing figures for money raised, but operatives say that several organizations have donated initial funds in its early stages of fundraising.

One person one vote rule upheld

Here is the issue according to ScotusBlog.

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 justices unanimously said it did, which ruled against an argument from Texas that legislative districts must be drawn with maps that only took into consideration eligible voters. They can, but they don't have to.

- Click here for the decision.

Here's commentary:

- One Person, One Vote, Eight Justices: The constitutional maxim does not require states to use eligible voters when drawing legislative districts, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday.

The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously turned back a legal effort to reinterpret the “one person, one vote” constitutional rule Monday, ruling that states may rely on total population when drawing their legislative districts.

The case, Evenwel v. Abbott, was brought by two Texas voters, Sue Evenwel and Edward Pfenninger, who challenged the apportionment of Texas Senate districts. With the exception of the U.S. Senate, every American legislative body is apportioned by total population under the “one person, one vote” rule first outlined by the Court in the 1960s.

Evenwel and Pfenninger argued that counting non-voters—children, the mentally disabled, disenfranchised prisoners, and non-citizens—broke that rule and diluted their political power in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Cause. Many observers, including my colleague Garrett Epps, notedthat Evenwel’s interpretation would redraw the American political map in favor of a whiter, older, and more conservative electorate.

“In agreement with Texas and the United States, we reject appellants’ attempt to locate a voter-equality mandate in the Equal Protection Clause,” Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote for the majority. “As history, precedent, and practice demonstrate, it is plainly permissible for jurisdictions to measure equalization by the total population of state and local legislative districts.”

Iowa v United States

A common argument made against have the Iowa Caucus the first in the nation is that it does not look like the rest of the US. The candidates that succeed there are less likely - the argument goes - to care about their interests. 

You be the judge.

- Click here for comparison data from the Census Bureau. 

One dot, one person

Click here for an explanation of this map:

On to Redistricting

As we've discussed in class, the biggest factor in this election was control of state houses following the census and reapportionment. Republicans peaked at the right time. They are in a position to draw district that will expand their influence far beyond their actual numbers in the electorate.

Judd Gregg and the Census

Commentators have suggested that Senator Gregg's decision to not be Commerce Secretary resulted from the White House's decision to conduct the upcoming census within the White House rather than in the Commerce Department as has been customary. Here's the root of the dispute:

The constitutionally mandated “enumeration” determines how many seats each state gets in the House of Representatives, and helps to determine where the district lines are drawn within each state. It will also shift billions upon billions of federal dollars over the next decade from some parts of the country to others because of population-driven financing formulas.

The parties have been at loggerheads for years over how to conduct the census. Most everyone agrees that the traditional method — mail-back surveys and door-knocking follow-ups — fails to count millions of Americans. Democrats argue that the solution is to use statistical sampling models to extrapolate figures for the uncounted people. If minorities, immigrants, the poor and the homeless are the most likely to be undercounted, then such sampling would presumably benefit the Democrats.

Republicans, for their part, argue that statistical sampling is unreliable and that the Constitution mandates an actual count. In 1999, the Supreme Court ruled, 5 to 4, that under current law, sampling techniques could not be used to reapportion House seats from one state to another. But some experts still believe that it could be used in drawing district lines within the states, and to determine money flows.