Greg Janetka
This week’s tracker features a partisan count update and recap of this year’s primary season.

Note: This is an abridged version of the Tracker. For the full report, click here.

Weekly highlight

The 2012 primary season came to an end last Thursday when New York voters went to the polls to make their choices known. The first primary of the year took place in Ohio over six months ago. Between then and September 13 a total of 44 states held primaries for 6,015 of the country’s 7,383 state legislative seats.

According to Louis Jacobson of Governing Magazine, the percent of state legislative turnover from an election was between 14.4 percent and 21.5 percent from 1998 to 2008. However, during the year of redistricting in 2002, that figure jumped to 24 percent. In 2010, the turnover rate was just below 2010, as the GOP boom created a higher than normal exodus of legislators. Because 2012 was another redistricting year, the rate of turnover was expected to once again be higher than usual.^[1]

Redistricting, among other factors, led to the defeat of 197 incumbents in the 2012 legislative primaries – 123 Republicans and 74 Democrats. Four states saw their number of incumbents defeated hit the double-digit mark: New Hampshire – 22, Kansas – 20, Georgia – 12, Tennessee – 12. Six states, meanwhile, saw no incumbents defeated – California, Indiana, Maine, Nebraska, Vermont and Washington. It should be noted that two of these states – California and Washington – use a blanket primary, where all candidates for a seat compete in a single primary with the two candidates receiving the most votes advancing to the general election.

Term limits will also play a role in legislative turnover. Altogether, 248 current state legislators – 79 senators and 169 representatives – will have to leave office after the November elections because of term limits. This is 13.89% of the 1,786 state legislative seats up for election in the 14 term-limited states with 2012 elections, and about 4% of the 6,015 state legislative seats that will be up for election altogether in 2012, including the non-term-limited states.

Between incumbents defeated in primaries and term-limited lawmakers, at least 445 state legislative seats will change hands. Additionally, 947 legislators not subject to term limits chose to retire rather than seek another term. Thus, a minimum of 1,392 new officials will take office following the November 6, 2012 general election.

Partisan Breakdown

As of today, September 17, 2012, the following figures represent the cumulative partisan breakdown of the 50 state senates and 49 state houses. In the 50 states, Republicans currently control 53.5% of all seats while Democrats hold 44.7%. All told, Republicans control 58 chambers while Democrats are the majority in 37 chambers. Three chambers are tied, while one is non-partisan.

The totals represent a loss of 11 Republican and 5 Democratic legislators from the August 13 Tracker.

State Senates

The partisan composition of state senates refers to which political party holds the majority of seats in the state senate. Altogether, in the 50 state senates, there are 1,971 state senators.

As of September 17, 2012, the breakdown of chamber control by party is as follows:

• 19 chambers
• 28 chambers
• 2 chambers (Alaska), (Virginia)
• 1 chamber (Nebraska)

See also: Partisan composition of state houses

Cumulative numbers

As of September 17, 2012, 1,899 state senators are affiliated with either the Republican or Democratic parties.

State Houses

The partisan composition of state houses refers to which party holds the majority of seats in the state house or the lower level of each state legislature. Altogether, in the 49 state houses, there are 5,413 state representatives.

As of September 17, 2012, the breakdown of chamber control by party is as follows:

• 18 chambers
• 30 chambers
• 1 chamber (Oregon)

Cumulative numbers

As of September 17, 2012, 5,354 state representatives are affiliated with either the Republican or Democratic parties.

Sessions

This week 3 out of 50 state legislatures – Michigan, New Jersey and Ohio – are meeting in regular session, while Massachusetts is meeting in informal session, which it will continue to do throughout the rest of the year. As of May 16, all states had convened their 2012 sessions.

Forty states have adjourned for the year, while four states – Montana, Nevada, North Dakota, and Texas – were not scheduled to hold regular sessions in 2012.

Special sessions

In 2011, special sessions were a widespread occurrence in state legislatures. This was largely due to states’ having to complete the redistricting process for legislative and congressional districts. Overall in 2011, there were 45 special sessions in 28 states.

Since the beginning of 2012, there have been 20 special sessions in 16 states. There are no special sessions currently scheduled.

SPRINGFIELD, Illinois: Campaign finance reports have been release for the stat and the amount of money spent in the 2011 campaign year totaled near $6.4 million. The Illinois Board of elections noted that Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan and Illinois Senate President John Cullerton raised around two-thirds of the total money reported in the state. But there was a gap between how much was raised and how much was spent on campaigns overall, while $6.4 million was reported as being raised, $12.7 was reported as being spent by various candidates. Several candidates though still have not filed their campaign finance reports yet to the Board. Finance reports also showed that most Chicago elected officials raised a fair amount of their money from people or organizations outside of the city.^[1]

By Lauren Rodgers

The U.S. Attorney’s Office is investigating Perdue on two fronts. The first is a “real estate transaction … involving Perdue, a friend and real estate developer, and the West Virginia Housing Development Fund, where Perdue is a board member.”^[1] The office is also looking into campaign contributions employees of the Treasurer’s office made to Perdue’s primary campaign for governor in the 2011 special election.^[1]Charleston, WV: West Virginia Treasurer John Perdue is one of the six state executive officials eligible for re-election in 2012. But his path to another term in office may be the most uncertain at this time.

Perdue was first elected to the statewide office in 1996 and won re-election in three subsequent elections. Despite his popularity, these investigations, coupled with Perdue’s loss in the Democratic primary during the 2011 special gubernatorial election, may draw more – and better qualified – candidates into the race for treasurer to challenge Perdue. Already, Republican Delegate Eric Nelson is said to be giving “serious thought” to a joining the race, and on the other side of the aisle, Delegate Douglas Reynolds (D) is purported to be waiting to see whether or not Perdue drops out of the race. State Senator Walt Helmick may also consider challenging Perdue, though he is thought to be more likely to pursue the office of agriculture commissionerbeing vacated by Gus Douglass.^[2][3]

By Jimmy Ardis

Texas: The US Supreme Court threw Texas redistricting and elections into a frenzy on Friday when it temporarily blocked the recently implemented interim maps that were drawn by a San Antonio federal court. The nation’s high court is set to hear arguments on the constitutionality of the maps next on January 9, 2012 – just under a month. The move has put the fate of the 2012 elections in a state of confusion.^[1]

Texas officials have been in an uproar this month over the interim maps drawn by the San Antonio federal court responsible for the state’s consolidated redistricting case. Over the past month the court has implemented newly drawn maps for the Texas House of Representatives, the Texas State Senate, and Texas’ congressional delegation. The San Antonio court was forced to draw interim maps in order for the 2012 elections to proceed without further delay after a DC-based court rejected Texas’ maps on grounds they violated the Voting Rights Act.

The maps increase minority voting power and in turn the likelihood of Democrats gaining seats. Republicans were not pleased with the court-drawn maps, to say the least. Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott has been highly critical of the court’s maps since day one, claiming the court was overreaching and creating policy instead of upholding the law. Abbott attempted to block the plans by requesting emergency stays from the United State Supreme Court. The Attorney General filed a request on November 28th asking the high court to halt implementation of the interim State House and State Senate plans. He filed a similar request for Texas’ congressional map on December 1st.

The Supreme Court answered the Texas Attorney General on Friday December 9th, temporarily halting the court-drawn maps until it can hear the case. As it currently stands, the signature filing deadline is December 15 for all state legislative and congressional candidates running for election in 2012. But those dates are now in peril since the Supreme Court isn’t set to hear arguments on the redistricting plans until January 9th.^[1]

While the Supreme Court is gearing to look at the case, the San Antonio court, along with Texas officials, is currently trying to figure what to do about the primary election dates – given that the filing deadlines are now moot. The court held hearings today to hear proposed plans on how to handle the primaries. Two camps have emerged, with those calling for two separate primaries on one side and those requesting one primary at a much later date on the other.

By Lauren Rodgers

Livingston County, New York: A New York state judge ruled that a lawsuit challenging New York’s same sex marriage law may proceed. The lawsuit was brought by the New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedom against New York State Senate, Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, and the New York State Department of Health.

In the lawsuit, the plaintiffs argue the law was passed as a result of a combination of factors, from Senate meetings that violated New York State Open Meeting Laws to promises of campaign contributions for Republican senators who changed their vote. The suit also cites atypical procedures in the Senate, Governor Andrew Cuomo‘s waiving the constitutionally required three-day review period before a legislative vote, lobbyists and the general public being denied access to representatives, and private dinners at the Governor’s mansion.^[1]

Attorney General Eric Schneiderman had filed to have the suit dismissed, but on November 18, 2011, Livingston County Supreme Court judge Robert Wiggins decided there is at least enough evidence that the open meeting laws had been violated to proceed. He explains “… the Court must consider allegations by Plaintiff as true [and] considering Plaintiff’s allegation, and without deciding matter at this time, the Court feels that is a justiciable issue presented whether there was a violation of the Open Meetings Law.”^[2]

Neither the office of the state attorney general nor a spokesperson for Gov. Cuomo commented on the ruling.^[2]

By: Geoff Pallay

RICHMOND, Virginia: Control of the Virginia State Senate is likely to come down to a recount, as the race between incumbent Democrat R. Edward “Edd” Houck and challenger Bryce Reeves (R) is separated by less than 100 votes with all precincts reporting.

Here are the winners of the 2011 Virginia State Senate election:

Democratic

Republican

Currently, Reeves has 22,536 votes and Houck has 22,450. In Virginia, there are no automatic recounts but the loser can request a recount.^[1]

[hide]Virginia State Senate District 17 General Election (Unofficial results)[2], 2011
Party		Candidate	Vote %	Votes
	Republican	Bryce Reeves	50.1%	22,536
	Democratic	Edd Houck Incumbent	49.9%	22,450
Total Votes				44,986

Incumbent Democratic state senator Roscoe Reynolds was the only other incumbent to fall in the state senate tonight. Reynolds lost to current incumbent Bill Stanley (R), who was moved into District 20 with Reynolds during redistricting.

If the results hold and Reeves defeats Houck, then the chamber will be tied 20-20, but Republicans will have the tie-breaking vote in the form of current Lieutenant Governor of Virginia Bill Bolling (R). If the recount is undertaken and Houck wins, then Democrats will have a 21-19 advantage in the chamber. Once the results are certified, the candidate would have 10 days to request a recount.

By Tyler Millhouse

Since the beginning of the year, 246 laws have been proposed in 40 states affecting the initiative and referendum process, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.^[1]

The Citizens in Charge Foundation (CICF), a non-profit that promotes initiative and referendum rights, identifies proposed laws which either ease or tighten restrictions on ballot initiatives. In 2011, CICF identified 61 laws that make getting a measure on the ballot more difficult. Of these 61, seven have passed. CICF also identified 44 laws that would make the process easier. Of these 44, four have passed.^[2]

On October 7, California Governor Jerry Brown (D) took action on another round of election law bills, signing two and vetoing three. The following is a breakdown of his actions:^[3]

a Senate Bill 202: SB 202 would keep statewide initiatives off the June primary ballot. All initiatives would be placed on the November ballot. Citizens in Charge Foundation rating: Reduces initiative rights.

d Senate Bill 205: SB 205 would ban per-registration card pay for voter registration workers.

d Senate Bill 334: SB 334 would require “the state ballot pamphlet to include, immediately below the analysis of a state ballot measure prepared by the Legislative Analyst, a list of the five highest contributors of $50,000 or more to each primarily formed committee supporting the measure and the total amount of each of their contributions.” Since pamphlets are printed in advance of the election, only the top donors as of 110 days prior to an election would be listed.^[4] Citizens in Charge Foundation rating: Reduces initiative rights.

a Senate Bill 397: SB 397 would permit eligible voters to register online.

d Assembly Bill 651: AB 651 would require petition gathering companies to register with the state and make regular reports.

The full impact of these actions is yet to be seen, but the most obvious for voters will likely be the approval of Senate Bill 202. Opponents argue that the bill will needlessly multiply the number of questions before voters and make it harder for voters to stay informed. However, proponents argue that as many as 2 million more voters could weigh in on each measure in the November general election. Policy arguments aside, some opponents worry that the labor union backed bill is designed to force every measure to appear before November’s more left-leaning voters.^[5][6]

The Ballot Law Update is released on the last Wednesday of each month. Stay tuned to the Tuesday Count for weekly ballot law news.

Court actions concerning I&R

• Nebraska will not appeal residency ruling: Last month, two cases, Citizens in Charge v. Gale & Bernbeck v. Gale, found Nebraska’s residency requirement unconstitutional. The cases also upheld several other petition restrictions. The deadline for the state to appeal has expired and no appeal was filed.^[7]

• Ohio redistricting referendum ruling: On October 14, The Ohio Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision allowing the referendum against Ohio’s congressional redistricting maps to proceed. Despite the GOP’s 6-1 advantage on the court, defenders of the Republican-drawn congressional map could not sway the justices. The Ohio Constitution prohibits referendums against “appropriations for the current expenses of the state government.” However, the court found that the redistricting legislation’s $2.75 million appropriation, designated for local election officials to implement the new map, does not fund current expenses and, thus, does not exempt the bill from referendum. If the referendum gathers enough signatures, the new redistricting plan will be suspended until voters weigh in. This would create significant confusion as courts and lawmakers struggle to choose a new plan as the elections approach.^[8][9]

• The court’s opinion in State ex rel Ohioans for Fair Districts v Husted can be found here.

• Washington signature privacy ruling and injunction: On October 17, a federal district court ruled that signatures for a 2009 domestic-partnership referendum must be made public. The plaintiffs in Doe v. Reed argue that publishing the signatures will open up signers to harassment or intimidation. However, the court found that the claim was unfounded in light of the fact that the proponents of secrecy were willing to testify publicly and that donors to the measure, whose names have already been published, have not been harassed. Plaintiffs quickly appealed the decision to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals despite the fact that some signatures have now been released. On October 24, plaintiffs were granted a temporary injunction, blocking any additional release of signatures for Washington Referendum 71.^[10][11]

• The district court opinion can be found here.

• The 9th Circuit’s injunction can be found here.

• Michigan Recall Ruling: On October 20, the Michigan Supreme Court reversed a State Court of Appeals ruling which blocked a recall election against State Rep. Paul Scott (R). In the case, Scott v. Michigan Director of Elections, Scott argued that the petition statement explaining the recall was inaccurate and that petitioners had begun collecting signatures too early. The Ingham Circuit Court originally ruled against Scott before seeing its ruling overturned by the State Court of Appeals. The recent Supreme Court ruling reinstates the Circuit Court’s ruling, overturning the Court of Appeals ruling on procedural grounds. The Circuit Court originally ruled that the court’s role was not to determine the accuracy of recall petition statements.^{[12][13][14][15]}

• The Michigan Supreme Court’s ruling can be found here.

Bill updates

The following is a list of recent updates for bills covered in past reports. For a complete list of updates, see the Ballot Law Bill Tracker.

• California Senate Bill 202: Update: Passed Senate (5/31/11), amended in Assembly (9/2/11), passed in Assembly (9/9/11), Senate concurs and sends to Gov. (9/10/11), Gov. signs (10/7/2011) SB 202 would keep statewide initiatives off the June primary ballot. All initiatives would be placed on the November ballot.^[16] Citizens in Charge Foundation rating: Reduces initiative rights.

• California Senate Bill 334: Update: Passed Senate (6/1/11), amended in Assembly (8/18/11), passed in Assembly (8/25/11,8/31/11), Senate concurs and sends to Gov. (9/9/11), Gov. vetoes (10/7/11) SB 334 would require “the state ballot pamphlet to include, immediately below the analysis of a state ballot measure prepared by the Legislative Analyst, a list of the five highest contributors of $50,000 or more to each primarily formed committee supporting the measure and the total amount of each of their contributions.” Since pamphlets are printed in advance of the election, only the top donors as of 110 days prior to an election would be listed.^[17][18] Citizens in Charge Foundation rating: Reduces initiative rights.

Approved legislation

• Oregon House Bill 2634: HB 2634 creates a Citizens’ Initiative Review Commission to form and oversee impartial citizens panels tasked with reviewing ballot measures. These panels, in use in another form since 2009, review proposed measures for their fiscal impact and draft arguments for and against the measures.^[19] Citizens in Charge Foundation rating: Protects/expands initiative rights.

• Nevada Assembly Bill 81: AB 81 is an omnibus election overhaul, affecting many aspects of Nevada election law. With respect to initiatives, the bill requires any person or committee to identify themselves on any campaign communication on which they spent more than $100. In addition, the bill requires petitions to include the contact information of the circulator and a statement that the circulator is 18 years of age.^[2] Citizens in Charge Foundation rating: Reduces initiative rights.

• Nevada Assembly Bill 82: AB 82 is also an omnibus election overhaul bill. It requires that organizations advocating for or against a ballot measure abide by the campaign finance reporting requirements of political action committees. This change has the effect of lowering the reporting threshold from $10,000 to $1,000.^[20] Citizens in Charge Foundation rating: Reduces initiative rights.

• Nevada Senate Bill 133: SB 133 makes Congressional districts the basis for the state’s distribution requirement. Petitioners must now collect 10% of the required signatures in each of the state’s three Congressional districts. Two previous requirements using counties as the basis of the requirement were struck down by the courts.^[21][22] Citizens in Charge Foundation rating: Protects/expands initiative rights.

• Colorado House Bill 11-1072: HB 11-1072 creates several new requirements for initiative proponents. In particular, the bill requires proponents, within ten days of filing, to produce a report detailing all the expenditures relating to the circulation of the initiative. The report must include the dates of circulation, total hours worked, and gross wages earned by each circulator. After the report is filed, any registered voter may challenge the report within ten days. Initiative proponents then have ten days to correct the error or a judicial hearing is scheduled. If the judge determines that an intentional violation did occur, the proponents are subject to a fine equal to three times the omission. In addition, proponents may be subject to civil action by the voter who brought the challenge for the recovery of legal fees.^[23] Citizens in Charge Foundation rating: Reduces initiative rights.

• Florida House Bill 1355: HB 1355 contains extensive modifications to Florida’s election law. With respect to initiative and referendum, the bill cuts the signature gathering period from 4 to 2 years. It also shortens the window for challenging legislatively-referred ballot questions.^[24] Citizens in Charge Foundation rating: Reduces initiative rights.

• Arizona House Bill 2304: HB 2304 alters the state’s requirements for petition circulators, eases third-party primary access, and clarifies laws regarding wearing political apparel at polling places. With respect to initiatives, the law repeals the state’s unconstitutional circulator residency requirement. However, it replaces this requirement with a requirement that out-of-state circulators register with the state.^[25] Citizens in Charge Foundation rating: Reduces initiative rights.

• Oklahoma House Bill 1664 (2011): HB 1664 provides for the notification of initiative proponents regarding the title status of a ballot initiative.^[2] Citizens in Charge Foundation rating: Protects/expands initiative rights.

• Montana House Bill 391 (2011): HB 391 was passed by the Montana Legislature on March 28, 2011 and has since become law. The law prohibits local ballot measure from setting the enforcement priority of state laws. The law is seen as targeting a local ballot measure which instructed local law enforcement to make marijuana laws their lowest priority.^[26][27] Citizens in Charge Foundation rating: Reduces initiative rights.

• Utah Senate Bill 165 (2011): SB 165 changes the basis of Utah’s signature requirements from the number of votes cast in the last gubernatorial election to the number of votes cast in the last presidential election. This will raise the number of signatures required. In addition, the bill bans electronic signatures for ballot initiatives.^[28] Citizens in Charge Foundation rating: Reduces initiative rights.

• Virginia Senate Bill 889 (2011): SB 889 removes the requirement that voters include the last four digits of their social security number when signing a petition. Citizens in Charge Foundation rating: Protects/expands initiative rights.

Edited by Bailey Ludlam

The clock is ticking, there are less than two months until the November 8, 2011 general elections. But keep an eye out, Louisiana and Colorado will inaugurate the season with elections just prior to November 8.

Historically, odd-numbered election years feature significantly fewer measures than even-numbered years. Since 1970 odd-numbered years have had an average of 46 ballot questions. In 2009, voters cast their ballots on a grand total of 32 questions. Although, 2011 does not get near the odd-year average, it does exceed 2009′s numbers. A total of 34 questions will appear on ballots in nine states.

However, the state of Louisiana will kick off the election year with five questions on their Primary election ballot on October 22. One question will appear on their general ballot on November 19.

Questions featured on the October ballot include:

Like Louisiana, Colorado’s general election will not be held on the November 8th election date. According to state law the general election will be held just one week earlier on November 1st.

Only one measure will appear on the Colorado ballot – Proposition 103 – and already campaigns are underway. Proposed by Colorado Sen. Rollie Heath, the measure would increase the state income and sales tax. Specifically, it would increase the state income tax to 5 percent and the sales tax to 3 percent. Currently, the income tax is 4.63 percent and the sales tax is 2.9 percent.

Just last week, opponents took their fight to the secretary of state after filing a complaint stating that a signature gatherer for the initiative broke the law with “false and misleading statements” about the measure. The complaint was filed by Jon Caldara, president of the Independence Institute, citing a video in which that signature gatherer states the ballot proposal would not raise taxes. The video was taken by Kelly Maher when the conservative blogger went undercover to find circulation gatherers.

The petition signature deadline ended months ago for three of Mississippi’s 2011 initiatives, but following a court ruling upholding the certification of the measures for 2011 the official ballot wording was released this week. All initiatives with updated ballot language can be found here.

Next week on September 30th, Montana will conclude their petition drive for proposed veto referendums for the 2012 ballot. Two proposals are currently in circulation. The Montana Medical Marijuana Veto Referendum (2012) calls for placing a legislative revision of a voter-approved 2004 medical marijuana measure on the ballot. A Eminent Domain Referendum calls for repealing House Bill 198, which supporters of the referendum say severely restricts property owners’ rights and lends more opportunity for corporations to implement eminent domain in acquiring land for profit. In order to qualify the measures for the ballot, a minimum of 24,337 signatures are required.
2011 Briefing Tour of the American West:
This week Ballotpedia’s Al Ortiz and Kelly O’Keefe will be touring the states of California, Arizona and Oregon to get an inside look at the Initiative & Referendum process. Among the attendees are the Initiative & Referendum Institute, More Democracy, the New America Foundation and IRI Europe.

In 2010, Ballotpedia attended a similar tour in Switzerland. Read about the international tour here.

Stay tuned for updates on Ballotpedia as well as live tweets.

SPOTLIGHT: Clackamas County urban renewal petition signatures reviewed
The Oregon Secretary of State ruled that the Clackamas County Auditor erroneously accepted three signatures when verifying a petition for an urban renewal district in the county; noting that the three accepted signatures were actually not valid. The director of elections stated that the County should have gone through all the remaining 175 questionable signatures rather than just stop when the needed amount was reached. The Secretary’s office will send a representative to the County to oversee the review of the remaining signatures; the review will be open to the public. This will not remove the issue from the ballot, it will just give a final tally of the valid signatures obtained by the petition and allow for someone to take the issue to court if they thought it necessary.^[1]

How many initiatives have been certified for the 2011 ballot? Click to find out!

BALLOT LAW UPDATE

Proposition 8 Video Release: A Federal Judge, James Ware, has ruled that footage of court hearings on California Proposition 8 may be made public. The footage was taken during the legal battle over the measure in the US District Court for the Northern District of California. Prior to trial, Walker had ruled that the proceedings could be recorded and broadcast live, amending the courts ordinary rules.^[2]

The plaintiffs challenged this decision in the US Supreme Court, arguing that it could open witnesses to harassment or intimidation. The Supreme Court ultimately sided with the plaintiffs and prohibited the broadcasts. Although no broadcasts were made, Walker decided to allow the video to be taken for court use.^[3]

In ordering the video released, Ware argued that the Supreme Court had only objected on procedural grounds to the court’s rule change on live broadcasts. Once the video has entered the record, he argued, there is a “strong presumption in favor of granting the public access to the recording.”^[4]

• Ware’s ruling can be found here.
• The Supreme Court’s ruling can be found here.

Click here for the latest Ballot Law Update report!

Edited by Geoff Pallay

On Tuesday, the GOP released a proposed Congressional redistricting map in Ohio. Yesterday, the Ohio House of Representatives approved that plan by a 56-36 vote that included several Democrats voting in the affirmative. The plan, which emerged from committee on Tuesday, eliminates two districts in the Cleveland area and one in southwest Ohio. The map also creates a new district centered in Columbus.

In Cleveland, the new map eliminates Betty Sutton’s district, shifting her home into Jim Renacci’s (R) Republican-leaning district. The plan also combines the districts of Dennis Kucinich (D) and Marcy Kaptur (D). In southwest Ohio, Mike Turner (R) and Steve Austria (R) will also be paired in a single district. Despite being paired with Kaptur, Kucinich announced that he would run in the new district, ending months of speculation that he would move and seek election in Washington State.

The plan has incited charges of gerrymandering from Democrats. Republicans note that although Democrats were allotted state funds to produce a competing map, no map was offered. Democrats have since responded that they favor a non-political solution for redistricting. Democrats are reportedly considering a lawsuit or even a veto referendum to block the legislation. The move has worked before. In 1915, Democrats succeeded in overturning a Republican redistricting plan at the ballot box.

On the same day as the plan’s release, the Ohio Campaign for Accountable Redistricting revealed the winners of its congressional redistricting competition. The first place winner was Mike Fortner, an Illinois state legislator interested in the redistricting process. Both maps can be seen side-by-side below. According to the coalition, the plan produced by the state legislature would have finished last on a metric gauging fairness, compactness, and competitiveness.

Overall, the map is expected to significantly strengthen Republican incumbents and solidify potential swing districts in favor of the GOP. Of the state’s 16 congressional districts, 12 would lean Republican under the new plan. The Ohio State Senate is expected to take up the bill next week.

Ohio Congressional Redistricting Proposals
This map show the GOP’s proposed Ohio Congressional Districts. This map shows the redistricting contest winner. See interactive version.

State news

Alabama

In a move similar to the strategy undertaken by other states like North Carolina and Texas, Attorney General Luther Strange (R) has asked a federal court to grant pre-clearance to the new Congressional map. The Congressional map was approved on June 8, 2011 — the map was also sent to the Department of Justice for pre-clearance.

Meanwhile, the legislative committee on reapportionment will be holding public hearings throughout the state in early October to garner more feedback on the approved districts. The committee is encouraging public comments to be submitted in written form in advance of the meetings. Joe Reed, chair of the Alabama Democratic Conference, said he believes a second majority-minority district should have been drawn — the new map has one district where the majority of voters are African-American.

Arizona

Figure 1: This map shows the Arizona Congressional Districts after the 2000 census.

Native American tribal groups testified to the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission this week about the drawing of Congressional districts. Historically, the relationship between Hopi and Navajo tribes has been contentious — but this year, the tribes have signaled a willingness to be drawn into the same district in order to have more collective unity on common issues. Additionally, the tribes expressed a desire for the district to be drawn so that it increases the likelihood of a Native American being elected to Congress.

Currently, the Navajo Reservation is part of the 1st Congressional District while the Hopi are in the 2nd District.

The tribes submitted two proposals to the commission for new Congressional maps.

California

Yesterday, Republicans filed a lawsuit seeking to repeal the new California State Senate map that was approved by the California Citizens Redistricting Commission. The suit — which was prepared by the Fairness and Accountability in Redistricting (FAIR) organization — asks the court to throw out the map and draw a new one. Charles Bell Jr, a Sacramento attorney, filed the suit with the California Supreme Court. As of this week, FAIR has raised more than $500,000 for its senate and congressional referendum and lawsuit efforts.

Colorado

After reviewing maps proposed by Republicans and Democrats, Colorado Reapportionment Commission Chairman Mario Carrera, the only unaffiliated member, announced on Monday that he would submit his own maps. Carrera was highly critical on how the other proposals divided up Arapahoe and Jefferson counties. Carrera is also pushing for more competitive districts and districts with higher numbers of Hispanics to reflect their growth in population.

Submitting his maps on Wednesday, Carrera explained that they would make 11 Senate seats and 22 House seats competitive, and of those 33, 17 would be “highly competitive.” Comparatively, the other proposals included 10 competitive Senate seats with 19 in the House. Additionally under Carrera’s proposal, 24 of the 100 legislative districts would have at least 30 percent Hispanic voters. Republican plans had 18 such districts, while Democrats proposed 21.

The commission — which will meet Monday to vote on the proposals — has a deadline of October 7 to submit a final plan to the state Supreme Court for review.

Connecticut

In a repeat of the redistricting process in 1991 and 2001, the eight-member reapportionment committee tasked with drawing new state and congressional districts failed to adopt a plan by yesterday’s deadline. Earlier in the week the committee, which is composed of Democratic and Republican leaders from the House and Senate, sent a letter to Gov. Dan Malloy (D) to inform him the work was unfinished, but stressed that both sides were working well together.

The task now goes to a nine-member commission — eight are appointed by the governor — who in turn select the ninth member. As has happened in the past, it is expected that the current eight members of the committee will be appointed to the commission. Who is likely to be the ninth member is uncertain; in the past two instances, former Connecticut Speaker of the House Nelson Brown acted in the role, however, he died last week.

Florida

On September 9, 2011 U.S. District Court Judge Ursula Ungaro rejected the lawsuit filed by U.S. Reps. Corrine Brown and Mario Diaz-Balart. According to reports, Ungaro stated that she was unswayed by the arguments and had already written an order prior to the September 2011 hearing. Additionally, Ungaroo noted in her decision that the amendment was a “valid regulation of the legislative process.”

In reaction to the news, Brown said she was disappointed but planned to fight the issue up to the [[judgepedia:Supreme Court of the United States|U.S. Supreme Court. Reports indicate that the Florida House has spent an estimated $200,000 on legal fees challenging the law. The League of Women Voters has since urged the house to stop fighting the measure and draw maps in compliance with the amendments.

• The full decision can be found here.

Idaho

Following the failure of the Redistricting Commission to meet their deadline last week, Idaho Secretary of State Ben Ysursa (R) and the GOP commissioners each filed a lawsuit with the state Supreme Court regarding the future of the process. In a brief ruling on September 9, the court dismissed both lawsuits, stating that they have no legal authority to intervene at this point in the process. However, the judges said that the court could hear cases challenging the 2002 maps and their effect on the 2012 primary and general elections if anyone wished to bring such a suit.

Per a state law modified in 2009, an entirely new six-member commission will be formed to take over drawing the district lines. Ysursa asked Democratic and Republican leaders in each chamber, along with the chairmen of both parties, to appoint new members by September 14 in order to start meetings next week. However, the deadline was pushed back when officials said they could not act that quickly, while also pointing out that the state Constitution provides them 15 days to make such appointments. The panel is expected to convene September 28. Thus far the commission has spent $296,103 of its $424,000 budget, while examining 82 state legislative district maps and 50 congressional maps.

Minnesota

Appointed by Minnesota Supreme Court Chief Justice Lorie Gildea, the special judicial panel on redistricting has decided to host a series of public hearings designed to gather public input on the process. The meetings will begin in October 2011. The full schedule can be found here.

New Mexico

The GOP introduced a Senate map on Wednesday that would not place any incumbents within the same district. The map was finalized once Kent Cravens confirmed his intention to resign when redistricting is completed. Democrats have yet to introduce their map.

Legislators in New Mexico are in the midst of a special session that was called to conduct redistricting and a number of other issues.

North Dakota

On Wednesday, North Dakota Governor Jack Dalrymple (R) announced a November 7 special session to tackle state redistricting. The session is expected to last five days and, in addition to redistricting, address disaster relief, a health insurance exchange, and the “Fighting Sioux” nickname controversy. Senator Ray Holmberg (R), chairman of the state’s joint redistricting committee, said the committee hopes to have a draft map ready for public comment soon. He added that the plan will keep the number of districts steady at 47, shifting two districts from rural areas into Fargo and Bismark.

South Dakota

On Tuesday, South Dakota’s Legislative Redistricting Committee adopted changes to the state’s American Indian legislative districts. Under the new boundaries, the Rosebud Sioux Indian Reservation would be included with the Lower Brule and Crow Creek reservations in a single legislative district. Minor changes were made to other districts containing reservations. The changes received bi-partisan support.

The committee will be accepting map submissions from the public in advance of final plan approval. Public proposals should be submitted by September 21, 2011. The committee will meet September 27 and 28 to adopt its final plan recommendations for the South Dakota State Legislature.

Texas

The federal three-judge panel overseeing Texas’ consolidated redistricting case began hearing closing arguments from plaintiffs yesterday. The plaintiffs include Democratic Texas lawmakers and Latino advocacy groups who claim the redistricting maps passed by the Texas State Legislature violate minority voting rights. Democratic Representative Marc Veasey’s lawyer, and attorneys for the Mexican American Legislative caucus and the Latino Redistricting Task Force all gave closing arguments.

The state of Texas (defendant in the case) asked for a one-day delay in order to better prepare and deliver their closing arguments today. Spokeswomen for Attorney General Greg Abbott (R) and Governor Rick Perry (R) said yesterday they were confident the state’s maps were in line with both the Voting Rights Act and the US Constitution.

While the final closing arguments will be heard tomorrow, participants and watchers of the trial will likely have to wait weeks for a decision. The reason for the delay is that the judges in the case are awaiting the outcome of another Texas federal redistricting case simultaneously occurring in DC. Texas submitted its plans to a DC federal panel in hopes of obtaining Voting Rights Act pre-clearance. A Dallas lawyer close to the redistricting case said yesterday that the San Antonio court will wait on the outcome of the DC case before delivering its decision.

Utah

On Tuesday, Utah’s Joint Redistricting Committee approved preliminary plans for the state’s house and senate districts. The plan pairs 12 incumbents — 10 house members and two senators. The maps show a transfer of seats from Salt Lake County (which experienced sluggish growth) to faster-growing Utah County. Salt Lake County will lose one senate seat, and two house seats. Utah County will gain one senate seat and one and a half house seats. While the house map has won praise for pairing a redistricting committee member (Republican Todd Kiser), the senate map has drawn more controversy for dividing Tooele County and allegedly favoring incumbents. Approval comes less than a week after controversy over the fairness of the senate map prompted a series of revisions.

• The preliminary maps can be found here.

Washington

The Washington State Redistricting Commission unveiled its first set of draft maps on Tuesday. Each of the four voting members of the commission presented their proposals, kicking off the public comment period that will continue through October 11. Maps by the two Republicans on the commission and one of the Democrats included the creation of a majority-minority congressional district, an issue that took center stage at most of the public forums held to date. The first of its kind in the state, the district would be made up of some variation of parts of southeast Seattle and South King County cities. All of the commissioners took widely different approaches when it came to the location of the new 10th Congressional District, something that may prove to be a big bargaining chip down the line.

Meanwhile, Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D) announced this week that he will be seeking re-election in Ohio, rather than moving to Washington. He had been said to be considering the idea since early in the year when it appeared that Republicans might dismantle his current district. While it now looks to be in tact, he’ll likely face a challenge from another Democratic incumbent in the primary.

West Virginia

On September 13, Putnam County issued a notice of pending legal action against West Virginia’s house redistricting plan. Putnam County Commission President Steve Andes argued, “If this isn’t gerrymandering, then they need to take that word out of the dictionary.”¹ Putnam county is divided among five house districts with only one fully contained within the county. By itself, the county warrants three house districts. Mason county will also join the suit, arguing that it deserves its own house district. According to Andes, five to six other counties are considering joining the suit.

Edited by Bailey Ludlam

Ballot measure developments have reached a boiling point with more 2011 and 2012 certifications flooding in, a recent court ruling in Mississippi and even a ballot measure shift. In the state of Arkansas, one measure was moved from the 2012 ballot to the earlier November 8, 2011 statewide ballot.

A diesel tax increase question, proposed to generate revenue for highway improvements, was moved to the 2011 ballot after Arkansas Governor Mike Beebe signed a proclamation in late August placing it on a special election ballot. Specifically, the proposal would implement a five-cent diesel tax to an existing bond issue in the state. This leaves only two ballot measures on the Arkansas 2012 statewide ballot.

Along with the certification of two ballot measures in Maine, the changes bring the 2011 count to a total of 34 ballot measures in nine states. A same-day registration veto referendum, to appear as Question 1, would overturn a same-day election registration repeal signed by the Maine Governor on June 21, 2011. Question 1 marks the second veto referendum to qualify for the 2011 ballot; the exact same number that were found on the ballot in the last odd-numbered election year in 2009.

The other ballot measure certification in Maine was Question 4, a measure to amend the Maine Constitution to change the years of redistricting the lawmaking body, congressional districts and county commissioner districts after 2013 from 2023 and every 10th years after that to 2021 and every 10th year after that.

A total of four ballot questions will now appear on the Maine 2011 statewide ballot.

The Mississippi 2011 ballot measure count remained unchanged in the past week due to a court ruling that denied a request to remove a “personhood” amendment from the ballot. The measure would add language to the Mississippi Constitution that defines a person at “the moment of fertilization.”

In the court ruling, the Mississippi Supreme Court stated: “Just as this Court cannot prohibit legislators from offering proposals in the House or Senate, this Court cannot impede voters from submitting proposals through the voter initiative process.”

While 2011 makes noise, 2012 refuses to be outdone with ballot certification increases. The North Carolina State Senate approved a same sex marriage amendment for ballot access on September 13, one day after the North Carolina House of Representatives voted to do the same. The proposed measure would amend the state constitution to define marriage as between one man and one woman.

This amendment is the second of its kind to be placed on the 2012 ballot; the other being in Minnesota. At least 10 other questions dealing with the topic of same-sex marriage have been proposed for 2012 statewide ballots.

The 2012 ballot measure count now stands at 57 statewide measures in 23 states.

As reported last week, hundreds of initiatives poured in from supporters to kick off the 2012 initiative circulation season. Already, 23 initiatives in Massachusetts were given the go-ahead to begin signature collection. 31 initiatives were originally filed.

The eight initiatives that were not approved for circulation can be found here, with the exception of two measures. Those measures were part of six different filings of a charitable solicitation regulation initiative. Two of those six proposals were rejected, with the attorney general stating that those versions of the initiative infringed on freedom of speech.

SPOTLIGHT:Red Light camera measures continue to cause debate
In Albuquerque, New Mexico a ballot measure set for the October 3 election has caused further controversy regarding red light cameras in cities.

According to reports, the main point of contention is that the red light camera company, Redflex, has poured $45,000 into the group Safe Roads Albuquerque which is spearheading the campaign to keep the cameras in place. One city councilor, Ken Sanchez, noted that he was not surprised that the company has contributed so much money. Sanchez argued that the company has made approximately $17.5 million in the five years that the cameras have been in place, so of course they would contribute to the campaign in an effort to keep them.

Although the public is scheduled to weigh in on the controversial topic, the city council will still make the final decision to keep or remove the cameras. City council members noted that they would likely side with the public’s opinion.^[1]

Elsewhere, in Bellingham, Washington, a lawsuit spurred by the camera company ATS to remove a red light camera measure from the ballot was semi successful. The final ruling in the case requires that the issue remain on the ballot for November, but the measure will no longer have a legally binding effect. Opponents to the cameras, though disappointed with the final outcome, noted that they were glad that at least residents would have their voices heard. ATS tried to remove the issue from the ballot entirely, but their claim was dismissed. The city of Longview will also have an advisory question about red light cameras on their November ballot.

In a July Ohio Senate Bill 5 poll, voters were asked about their support for Senate Bill 5. How many opposed the collective bargaining law? Click to find out!

BALLOT LAW UPDATE

Florida Amendment 6 challenge: On Friday, September 9, U.S. District Judge Ursula Ungaro rejected a lawsuit filed by U.S. Reps. Corrine Brown and Mario Diaz-Balart against Amendment 6. Publically, Brown and Diaz-Balart have argued that it would hinder the ability of minority voters to elect candidates of their choice. During oral arguments last week, their attornies argued that the fair redistricting amendment unconstitutionally curtails the Legislature’s authority under the Elections Clause and attempts to dictate election outcomes.^[2]

However, in her 22-page opinion, Judge Ungaroo ultimately found that the amendment was a “valid regulation of the legislative process under the Elections Clause.” An appeal has been promised.^[3]

Amendment 6 has been tied up in legal challenges since voters approved it on November 3, 2010. The Amendment established new guidelines for congressional redistricting in order to ensure fair districts that are “as equal in population as feasible” and use “city, county and geographical boundaries.” The full decision can be found here.

California election day bill: On Saturday, September 10, the California State Legislature passed Bill 202. The bill would keep statewide initiatives off the June primary ballot. Opponents argue that the bill is an attempt to place all initiatives before November voters — a group that tends to be more Democratic than the state’s primary voters. Most initiative states place all statewide intiatives on the fall ballot.^[4][5]

Click here for the latest Ballot Law Update report!