By Ballotpedia’s Congressional, State Legislative, State Executive and Ballot Measure teams

The May 8 primary elections are now over, capping one of the busiest election days of the 2012 season. Here at Ballotpedia, we’ve got you covered in all aspects of the ballot. That includes filling you in on the overall occurrences of Tuesday’s events.

Here you fill find stories giving recaps on what happened during the primary elections held in the states below. Additionally, you will find links to the pages about the recalls that happened in Wisconsin. More recap articles are coming soon, so check back here for more updates!

Here are a few notable developments from the May 8 elections:

• North Carolina Amendment 1 was approved with 61.05% of voters casting “yes” votes. The measure intends to define marriage as between one man and one woman in the state constitution.
• Incumbent Richard Lugar, Republican U.S Senator from Indiana, lost to challenger Richard Mourdock. Lugar had been in office since 1977.
• Six state House incumbents lost on May 8 in North Carolina – five Republicans and one Democrat - bringing the number of defeated incumbents in state legislatures across the country to 18.
• Earl Ray Tomblin, the only West Virginia state executive incumbent seeking re-election who faced a primary challenger, easily defeated Arne Moltis in the Democratic gubernatorial election

Indiana

The bullets below contain a recap of what happened during the May 8 primary election in Indiana. No recap article was posted for state executives due to only one candidate running for governor from each party. The governor’s race was the only state executive office on the ballot in the primary election:

• State Executive Official Primaries
• Congressional and Legislative Primaries recap

North Carolina

The bullets below contain a recap of what happened during the May 8 primary election in North Carolina.

• Amendment 1 recap
• State Executive Official Primaries recap
• Congressional and Legislative Primaries recap

West Virginia

The bullets below contain a recap of what happened during the May 8 primary election in West Virginia.

• State Executive Official Primaries recap
• Congressional and Legislative Primaries recap

Wisconsin

Primary elections were held in the recall campaigns for Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker and Lieutenant Governor Rebecca Kleefisch. See below for election results:

• Scott Walker recall, Wisconsin (2012)
• Rebecca Kleefisch recall, Wisconsin (2012)

Edited by Greg Janetka

Note: Ballotpedia has been publishing the Redistricting Roundup, a weekly report on redistricting news, every Friday. Beginning April 9, all redistricting updates will be added to the State Legislative Tracker.

This week’s tracker features an update on the current special sessions in Virginia and Washington and a look at recent developments in the Wisconsin recalls.

Sessions

This week 29 out of 50 state legislatures are meeting in regular session. No states are scheduled to convene or adjourn this week.

Fourteen states have adjourned for the year, while four states – Montana, Nevada, North Dakota, and Texas – will not hold regular sessions in 2012.

Regular sessions

See also: Dates of 2012 state legislative sessions

The following states convened their regular legislative sessions:

• January 3: Kentucky, Mississippi, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont

• January 4: California, Indiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New York

• January 9: Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Washington

• January 10: Arizona, Delaware, Florida, New Jersey, South Dakota, Tennessee, Wisconsin

• January 11: Colorado, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, South Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia

• January 17: Alaska, New Mexico
• January 18: Hawaii
• January 23: Utah
• January 24: Minnesota
• February 1: Oregon
• February 5: Oklahoma
• February 7: Alabama
• February 8: Connecticut
• February 13: Arkansas, Wyoming
• March 12: Louisiana State Legislature

The following states have ended their regular session:

• February 16: New Mexico
• March 6: Oregon
• March 8: Utah, Washington
• March 9: Arkansas, Florida, Wyoming
• March 10: Indiana, Virginia, West Virginia
• March 16: Wisconsin (will return for limited business on April 24)
• March 19: South Dakota
• March 29: Georgia, Idaho

Click here to see a chart of each state’s 2012 session information.

Special sessions

Special sessions were a widespread occurrence in the state legislatures in 2011, in particular due to the necessity of states to conduct the redistricting of state legislative and congressional districts. Overall, in 2011 there were 45 special sessions in 28 states.

Thus far there have been five special sessions in 4 states. Two of which are ongoing.

Florida

Following the Florida Supreme Court’s 5-2 decision on March 9 to reject the state’s new Senate maps, the Senate reconvened in special session on March 14 in order to redraw its map.^[1]

The session ended last Tuesday following the House’s 61-47 vote to pass the Senate-drawn plan for new districts. The first map was rejected for failing to meet Fair District standards as required by a constitutional amendment that was passed by voters in 2010. The new map now goes to the court, who will have 30 days to approve or reject it.^[2]

Virginia

The Virginia General Assembly remains in special session. It ended its regular session on March 10 without passing a new state budget. Thus, the same day that the Legislature adjourned, it also formally started a special session to address the issue.^[3]

Democrats initially sought changes to spending priorities, as well as a power sharing agreement in the equally divided Senate.^[4] Last week Democrats agreed to separate their quest for more power in the chamber from the budget process and the Senate passed a new $85 billion budget by a vote of 35-4. The measure then went to the House, who passed its own version in February. Negotiators are currently working to create a compromise between the two.^[5]

Washington

Washington is currently in special session. Gov. Chris Gregoire (D) called for the session on March 8 after it was clear the Legislature was going to end its 60-day regular session without passing a supplemental budget plan. House Democrats passed a budget agreement by a 53-45 vote, but it included a delayed payment for schools, something that had previously failed in the Senate. While Democrats hold the majority in the Senate, three members broke from the party ranks to vote for a Republican plan that got rid of the delayed payment and focused instead on more spending cuts.^[6]

Senate Republicans unveiled a new plan on March 15 that Gregoire said she had no knowledge of despite meetings between the governor and senate leaders of both parties. Angered at being kept in the dark, she said she would not sign most of the bills awaiting her signature and threatened to veto some of them in order to force lawmakers to break their stalemate.^[7] Gregoire lifted her ban on bill signing last Thursday, saying, “In the next 48 hours, we could have an agreement. Then again, in the next 48 hours, it could all fall apart.”^[8]

Indeed, lawmakers failed to reach an agreement and negotiations remain ongoing. The special session ends April 10 and Gregoire said that unless a compromise is made by tomorrow, there will likely not be enough time to complete all the work necessary by the deadline. If this happens, the governor can either call another special session or make across-the-board cuts to state programs on her own.^[9]

In recess

As of today, April 2, 4 states’ sessions are currently in recess:

• Kansas – In recess from March 31 to April 24. Will return for wrap-up session April 25, scheduled to adjourn April 30.
• New Jersey – In recess for budget hearings from March 16, 2012 through May 15, 2012^[10]
• North Carolina – Mid-term recess June 18, 2011 through May 12, 2012^[10]
• Wisconsin – In recess from March 17, 2012 through April 23, 2012. Will only return to conduct limited business.^[10]

Elections

See also: State legislative elections, 2012 and State legislative elections results, 2012

A total of 86 of the 99 chambers will hold state legislative elections on November 6, 2012.

1,267 (64.3%) of the country’s 1,971 state senate seats are up for re-election in November 2012, and 4,712 (87.05%) of the country’s 5,413 state house seats are up for re-election. Altogether, 5,979 (81.0%) of the country’s 7,384 state legislative seats will be up for re-election during the presidential election year.

• 43 of the 50 state senates are holding elections.
• 43 of the 49 state houses are holding elections.

The 5,979 seats up for election is 146 fewer than the 6,125 that were contested in 2010.

Filing deadlines

See also: Signature requirements and deadlines for 2012 state government elections and 2012 Elections preview: Comparing state legislative filing deadlines

Two states – Colorado and Tennessee – have signature filing deadlines this week.

So far, deadlines have passed in 22 states:

States with upcoming deadlines:

• April 2: Colorado
• April 5: Tennessee
• April 13: North Dakota, Oklahoma
• May 7: Florida
• May 15: Michigan House of Representatives
• May 18: Washington
• May 25: Georgia
• May 30: Arizona

Primaries

See also: 2012 election dates

There are no state legislative primaries this week.

So far, primaries have taken place in two states:

• Ohio – March 6
• Illinois – March 20

Thus far, a total of five state legislative incumbents have been defeated in a primary.

States with upcoming primaries:

• April 24: Pennsylvania
• May 8: Indiana, North Carolina, West Virginia
• May 15: Idaho, Nebraska, Oregon
• May 22: Arkansas, Kentucky
• May 29: Texas
• June 5: California, Iowa, Montana, New Mexico, South Dakota

Note: Texas was originally scheduled to hold their primary on March 6. However, with newly drawn state legislative maps being fought in the courts, the date was moved to May 29.

Recalls

Currently, 18 states permit the recall of state officials. Between 1913 and 2008, there were just 20 state legislative recall elections in five states. Of the 20 state legislative recall elections, 13 out of 20 resulted in the state legislator being recalled. In 2011, there were 11 state legislative recalls in three states, 4 of which resulted in the legislator being recalled.

Michigan

2011 saw a wave of recall attempts in Michigan. While most of those efforts dried up, at least two campaigns are continuing on (the recall of Paul Scott was successful on November 8, 2011). Organizers of the campaigns to recall Bruce Caswell (R) and Phil Pavlov (R) are aiming for the August 2012 ballot.

Wisconsin

See also: Timeline of events of the recall of Wisconsin State Senators in 2012

Democrats in Wisconsin filed recall petitions on November 15, 2011 against four Republican state senators – Pam Galloway, Scott Fitzgerald, Terry Moulton and Van Wanggaard.^[11] Campaign organizers turned in more than the necessary number of signatures in each of the four races on January 17, 2012. Dane County Circuit Judge Richard Niess signed an agreement scheduling primaries for May 8 with general elections on June 5. If there is no primary the general election takes place on May 8.^[12]

Last Friday state Republican Party officials announced plans to run Democratic candidates in all four recall primaries. According to GOP Executive Director Stephan Thompson, the move was done to ensure primaries in all races, which then guarantees all recalls will take place on the same day.^[13] Candidates need to submit 400 valid signatures by April 10 in order to be on the ballot.

Because Wisconsin has an open primary system, voters do not have to be registered to a specific party in order to cast a vote in the primary. Therefore, Republican-leaning voters can cross over to the Democratic primary and vice-versa. Republicans used the same maneuver last year during the recall elections of six GOP state senators. The “fake” or “protest” candidates were all defeated in the primary, receiving between 29 and 44 percent of the vote.

Prior to the GOP’s announcement, no known fake candidates had declared their intentions to run, however, questions have been raised about 28-year-old Andrew Mielke, who is running as a Democrat against Sen. Van Wanggaard. Former Democratic state Sen. John Lehman had already announced his intentions, setting up a primary between the two men. While Mielke has said he is not affiliated with the Republican Party, Democratic Party officials said he wasn’t a registered member of their party and didn’t sign the recall petitions against Wanggaard or Gov. Scott Walker.^[14]

Matchups in the other races currently stand as follows:

• Sen. Scott Fitzgerald is being challenged by Democrat Lori Compas, an organizer of the recall. Republican Gary Ellerman said he will be entering the race as a fake Democrat but will not actively campaign.^[15]
• Sen. Terry Moulton is being challenged by former Democratic state legislator Kristen Dexter.
• Sen. Pam Galloway resigned, but the recall against her continues as scheduled. It is currently a fight between state Reps. Jerry Petrowski (R) and Donna Seidel (D).

Special elections

See also: State legislative special elections, 2012

There are two special elections scheduled to take place this week in Oklahoma.

Oklahoma House District 71

Daniel Sullivan (R) resigned effective November 30, 2011 in order to take a position as CEO of the Grand River Dam Authority. A special election has been scheduled for April 3, 2012 to select a replacement. A primary took place on February 14. The race is in the state’s new legislative districts.^[16][17]

Democratic Primary Candidates:

• Dan Arthrell 581 a
• Robert J. Walpole 98

Republican Primary Candidates:

• Evelyn L. Rogers 22
• Lydia M. D’Ross 43
• Katie Henke 819 a
• Gerald J. Lovoi 135
• Bonnie Huffines 41

General election candidates:

Dan Arthrell

Katie Henke

Oklahoma Senate District 20

David Myers (R) passed away on November 11, 2011 after a battle with pneumonia. A primary election took place on February 14. The race takes place in the state’s new legislative districts.^[18][19]

Democratic Candidate:

• Magnus Scott Sr.

Republican Primary Candidates:

• Phil Berkenbile 1,285
• Wayne Murphey 1,824
• Ann Griffin 2,211 a^[20]
• Chris Humphreys 208

General election candidates:

Magnus Scott Sr.

Ann Griffin

Looking ahead

Upcoming special elections include:

• April 3: Oklahoma House of Representatives District 71
• April 3: Oklahoma Senate District 20
• April 10: Minnesota Senate District 20
• April 24: Pennsylvania House District 22
• April 24: Pennsylvania House District 134
• April 24: Pennsylvania House District 153
• April 24: Pennsylvania House District 169
• April 24: Pennsylvania House District 186
• April 24: Pennsylvania House District 197

Edited by Geoff Pallay

Note: Today’s roundup, March 30, will be the final edition of the Redistricting Roundup. Ballotpedia staff will still cover redistricting news, with updates being added to the State Legislative Tracker, which is published on Monday afternoons.

Here at Ballotpedia, when we first began publishing the Redistricting Roundup, we planned to close it down at the end of March 2012. We are sticking to that schedule, as today will be the final edition of the Friday afternoon publication. After 59 editions of the Friday-afternoon Redistricting Roundup, today’s 60th version will be the final Friday release. Ballotpedia staff will continue to provide redistricting updates — but those will be contained within the State Legislative Tracker which is published on Monday afternoons.

But who knew that in March 2012, some states would still be engrossed in chatoic map-drawing, a mere 12 months after every single state had received its 2010 Census data.

After two map options were rejected last week, the Kansas House of Representatives has approved a congressional redistricting plan. Passed 81-43 on March 27, the plan would move half of Topeka (currently in District 2) to District 1, bolstering rural District 1′s flagging population growth. However, the Senate’s reapportionment chair, Tim Owens (R), called the plan “absurd” and predicted that the plan would founder in his chamber. House Speaker Mike O’Neal (R) responded by threatening to reject and redraw the Senate’s chamber map if their congressional plan is not approved.

The conflict is part of an ongoing struggle between moderate Republicans in the Senate and conservatives in the House. In addition, regional conflicts over the location Kansas City, Manhattan/KSU, and a new federal biosecurity facility have further complicated matters. Ordinarily, each chamber defers to the other on its chamber maps and together draw a consensus congressional plan.

State news

Alaska

On March 14, the Alaska Supreme Court ruled that the redistricting board must redraw its first map with a priority on following the Alaska Constitution. Only when a constitutional map had been drafted could the board adjust it for compliance with the Voting Rights Act. On Tuesday, March 27, the board approved a preliminary plan in compliance with the state constitution. On Thursday, March 29, the board approved adjustments to the Fairbanks area to satisfy the VRA. The board aims to have all the necessary adjustments made by tomorrow. Most notably, Thursday’s tweaks restore a Senate seat to Fairbanks.

Arizona

On Tuesday, Governor Jan Brewer (R) signed legislation to provide an additional $700,000 to the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission. While the commission did ask for $1.1 million, executive director Ray Bladine said the approved sum is enough to avoid a possible lawsuit for more funding.

Florida

On Tuesday, March 27, the Florida House of Representatives concurred with the Senate’s chamber redistricting map. The House did not amend the map, instead deferring to a plan approved by the Senate on March 22. The map now moves to the Florida Supreme Court for review — the Governor need not approve the plan.

Senate Democratic Leader Nan Rich continues to oppose the plan, arguing that it violates the 2010 “Fair Districts” amendment. The revisions suggest that the revised plan may be slightly more friendly to Democratic candidates.

• The overturned plan can be found here.
• The revised plan can be found here.

In other news, a trial involving several challenges against the state’s congressional map will begin on April 16.

Maryland

A referendum petition to overturn Maryland’s congressional redistricting plan passed in October may appear on the November 6, 2012 ballot. Maryland Delegate Justin Ready (R – Caroll County), who is spearheading the move, announced on Tuesday that the referendum would continue forward with collecting signatures. In order to qualify for the ballot supporters are required to collect a minimum of 55,736 valid signatures by June 30.

Under the new map, the number of Carroll County delegates is reduced from four to three as the 4th district, which was previously only in Carroll County, now includes part of Howard County as well.

Missouri

Earlier this week, just before the candidate filing deadline, the Missouri Supreme Court upheld the state house districts that were drawn by a special commission. That map was originally challenged via a lawsuit.

Montana

The Montana Redistricting Commission has begun gathering public input on new state legislative maps. The commission is touring the state to hear input from citizens. A new map will not be implemented until the 2014 elections, as is typical under Montana’s map-drawing calendar. Hence, the commissioners are on schedule in its process.

New Hampshire

Gov. John Lynch (D) signed the new Senate map into law last Friday, but vetoed the plan for the House, saying it violates the constitutional principle of equal and local representation, is inconsistent, and changes boundaries unnecessarily.

Under a successful 2006 ballot initiative, any town of 3,000 citizens or more is guaranteed a resident member in the House of Representatives and, according to Lynch, 62 towns and wards that deserved their own seats did not receive one. The proposal for new House districts was passed in the House by a veto-proof majority, but was one vote short of that mark in the Senate.

On Wednesday, the House voted 246-112 to override Lynch’s veto. The item was not on the calendar, however, and House Speaker William O’Brien’s (R) move to put it up for a vote was a controversial one. It began when O’Brien called for a recess in order to hold a private Republican caucus, forcing Democrats and onlookers to leave the chamber. When reconvened, the motion was put forward, angering Democrats. They attempted to delay the motion and tried to called a recess in order to have their own private caucus, but O’Brien denied the request. The Senate took up the matter that night, voting to override the veto 17-7.

New Hampshire Democratic Party spokesman Collin Gately said there is no question that a lawsuit will be filed and that the party is currently reviewing their options. Community and advocacy groups are also expected to join legal challenges.

New York

While Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) signed off on new state legislative districts on March 15, the maps still need to go through a number of legal challenges before becoming law. Last week the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York appointed Nathaniel Persily, who previously provided assistance to the court to draw up a new congressional map, to determine when the court would have to intervene to ensure state legislative districts are finalized in time for candidates to file.

The legislature’s plan is currently undergoing the pre-clearance process by the U.S. Department of Justice to determine if it is in compliance with the Voting Rights Act. Additionally, the Senate map is the subject of a lawsuit brought by Sen. Martin Dilan (D) and others who claim the addition of a 63rd seat in the chamber is unconstitutional. State Supreme Court Judge Richard F. Braun previously ruled that the court had no ability to review the proposal as it had not been voted on or signed into law and was only a recommendation, but now that it was signed the case is proceeding with oral arguments scheduled for April 6.

If the map fails to get pre-clearance or the 63rd seat is found to be unconstitutional, the U.S. District Court may intervene in order to draw the maps, something they have made clear they are reluctant to to do.

Wisconsin

Following a long court battle, Wisconsin’s new districts for the next decade are all set, with the exception of Assembly Districts 8 and 9. Last week a three-judge federal panel upheld 130 of the state’s 132 districts, but ordered two in the Milwaukee area be redrawn because they weakened Latino voting power and violated the Voting Rights Act. The court initially ordered the legislature to take up the task, but on Tuesday took the job away from the sharply divided lawmakers, who they said were unable to make even the “precious few” changes necessary to bring the map into compliance. In doing so the court ordered the state and plaintiffs in the case to try to reach an agreement by April 2. If unable to do so, they were instructed to submit their own recommendations to the court by April 3.

Wyoming

A group of Wyoming residents said they will file a lawsuit regarding the recently passed state legislative redistricting plan. The residents claim the map fails the two-pronged approach regarding protecting one-person, one vote, as well as splitting more county lines than is necessary. The suit will be filed with the State Supreme Court.

Newsletter Signup

Edited by Al Ortiz

Although there was a decertification this week, that didn’t hold back the Tuesday Count from growing to 77 ballot measures in 28 states. Montana subtracted a measure from the ballot via legal challenge, while Georgia and Minnesota each chipped by adding their own statewide proposals.

On November 23, 2011, a lawsuit to strike the Montana Supreme Court Elections Question from the June 5 primary election ballot was filed by a group state voters which reports say included a handful of 1972 Constitutional Convention delegates. According to the lawsuit, the measure would illegally amend the Montana Constitution. The lawsuit specifically stated: “The referendum is illegal, unconstitutional and void, in that it deprives (voters) of their right to vote for certain Supreme Court candidates.”

On March 20, those who filed the lawsuit got their wish. Judge James Reynolds struck the measure from the ballot saying that adding the new candidate requirements for Supreme Court justices, those which required that candidates live inside proposed regional districts, conflict with what is already in the state constitution.

Requests by supporters to simply remove the offending language were denied, with Judge Reynolds saying, “Without clear judicial legislation, this court cannot rewrite the remaining parts of this referendum. To do so would entail completely rewriting the title, the ballot statement, the statements of implication, and the text of the referendum itself. There is no constitutional or statutory authority for such a revision.” Reportedly, both sides expect an appeal to the Montana Supreme Court.

Meanwhile, in Georgia, an amendment will appear on the ballot in November that would allow the state to set up charter schools. Sent to the ballot by the Georgia Legislature, the measure developed following a May 2011 ruling by the Georgia Supreme Court. The court ruled that the state’s involvement in the establishment of public charter schools – the Georgia Charter School Commission – was unconstitutional. Specifically, the court ruled that the commission was illegal because it approved and funded charter schools despite objection by local school boards. For another major development regarding this measure, read the section of this report.

Minnesota legislators have been fast at work sending a second constitutional amendment to the statewide ballot after their May 2011 decision to refer a same-sex marriage measure to state voters. On Friday, March 23, the Minnesota Senate passed a voter identification amendment with a 36-30 vote. This action passed the amendment to the November ballot since the bill was previously approved by the Minnesota House of Representatives.

The proposal would require that all voters in the state show photo identification before voting. Legislation to enact similar laws without a constitutional amendment passed both chambers of the Minnesota Legislature, but were vetoed by Governor of Minnesota Mark Dayton.

Health care developments

This week, the United States Supreme Court will hear arguments to decide whether or not the “Affordable Care Act”, signed by President Barack Obama in 2010, is unconstitutional.

However, since 2010, states across the union have seen opponents of the legislation fight back via statewide ballot measures, through both the legislature and by citizen initiative. These measures, proposed for statewide public votes and known as “health care freedom” measures, bar any rules or regulations that would mandate state residents to participate in a health-care system.

Given the historic implications of this week’s events, here’s a review of statewide ballot measures that were proposed or voted on since 2010:

• In 2010, four “health care freedom” measures were on the ballot in Arizona, Colorado, Missouri and Oklahoma, with three being approved and the lone citizen initiative being defeated in Colorado.

• In 2011, one “health care freedom” measure made the ballot, this time in Ohio. The measure was approved with a vote of 65.63% to 34.37%. That measure was proposed via citizen initiative.

• The 2012 elections have yet to occur, but four measures are on the ballot regarding the national health care legislation. All four are legislative referrals.

• In all, since 2010, at least 17 states saw proposed measures that later failed to make the ballot. Note: not all measures categorized under “health care” pertain to the national legislation.

Quick hits

• UND hockey team takes the ice with no nickname for first time: Saturday, March 24, marked the first time the the University of North Dakota men’s hockey team played a game wearing jersey’s bearing neither the ‘Fighting Sioux’ nickname nor the accompanying logo. Though this is the first sign of the NCAA’s actions against the school have taken effect, the fight for the nickname is far form over. North Dakota Measure 4, a referendum on laws repealing the mandated use of the nickname, is set to appear on the state’s June 12 ballot.^[1]

• Judge rules on part of challenge to Montana Taxpayer Dividend Measure: On Wednesday, March 14, Jeffrey Sherlock threw out one of the measure’s opposing arguments, ruling that the ballot measure does not represent an illegal appropriation of money by ballot issue. However, the challenge to the measure is not over yet, Judge Sherlock still has to rule on whether or not the measure constitutes an illegal delegation of power.^[2]

• Georgia Senate approves bill for funding charter schools: On March 26, the Georgia Senate approved HB 797, sending it back to the House for final approval. The bill essentially creates a system for funding charter schools in the state, and also recreates the Georgia Charter Schools Commission. The bill is intended build on state laws regarding charter schools and will be mostly relevant if the Charter Schools Amendment passes the public vote in November.^[3][4]

SPOTLIGHT:School and city taxes dominate Missouri April election
Next week on April 3 in the state of Missouri an estimated twenty-three counties will hold elections. Those twenty-three counties are the sole counties, at this time, to have posted election information that will be voted on by residents. (See how Missouri counties fared in the most recent “County website election information” study)

According to those counties, there are twenty-two measures that relate to school bond and tax issues.

• Most notably, in the Joplin school district area, approval is being sought for a $62 million bond in order to help pay for tornado damaged facilities and to build a storm shelter for potential future disasters.
• In the St Joseph school district, they are asking for a bond in the amount of $42 million in order to allow for renovation projects in the district including building a new elementary school.
• In Christian County, a levy renewal and addition are being asked to further support the law enforcement services in the county. Opponents have noted the jail is only 10 years old and there should not be a need for additional money.
• Greene County is also seeking an additional tax for law enforcement services in the county, though this tax would increase the county sales tax rate by 1/8th of a percent.

Colorado, Florida and Wisconsin will also have issues decided on April 3. Stay tuned for results!

Click here for a full list: March 20, 2012 ballot measures in Illinois

An Ohio Constitutional Convention question is on the ballot in 2012. When was the last time a question like this was on the Buckeye State’s ballot? Click here to find out!

BALLOT LAW UPDATE
CA Court upholds recall signatures: On March 12, a California Superior Court allowed a recall election to move forward against a Shasta Lake city council member. The target of the recall had sued to block the election, alleging that a resident of another district assisted in the signature collection. California has an in-district residency requirement on the books for local signature campaigns. However, the judge held that, independent of the circulator’s residency, the election should go forward. The judge noted that the circulator, not the signer, is accountable under California law. The in-district requirement is currently being challenged, and the state maintains that the law is not enforced.^[5]

• The full decision can be found here.

Ruling in Mukilteo Traffic Cam Case: On March 8, 2012, the Washington Supreme Court ruled against a Mukilteo initiative aimed a blocking traffic enforcement cameras. The Mukilteo initiative qualified for the ballot and was approved by a large margin. However, a citizen’s group (Mukilteo Citizens for Simple Government) challenged the initiative, arguing that the traffic camera program was not subject to the local initiative process. A lower court held that the case must wait until after the 2010 election–that decision was appealed to the Supreme Court. The High Court ultimately agreed with the plaintiffs, arguing that the state statute authorizing the cameras gave local officials sole discretion over their use. The Court cited City of Sequim v. Malkasian which held that:

A grant of power to a city’s governing body… means exclusively the mayor and city council and not the electorate.

Prior to the ruling, the Mukilteo City Council chose to treat the question as advisory and remove the cameras voluntarily. The ruling is expected to apply to similar cases around the state.^[6]

• The majority opinion can be found here.
• The dissenting opinion can be found here.

A new update will be released on March 28, 2012. Click here for past Ballot Law Update reports!

Edited by Geoff Pallay

Note: Next week’s roundup, March 30, will be the final edition of the Redistricting Roundup. Ballotpedia staff will still cover redistricting news, with updates being added to the State Legislative Tracker, which is published on Monday afternoons.

Acting with a sense of urgency, a three-judge federal panel approved new congressional districts for New York on Monday–the day before candidates could begin collecting signatures to qualify for the ballot. The map is nearly identical to the one proposed by U.S. Magistrate Judge Roanne Mann, who was appointed to act as special redistricting master. The panel noted that Mann was able to provide the court with a map in two weeks’ time – something the legislature has unable to do for over a year.

The new map reduces the number of congressional seats from 29 to 27, eliminating the mid-Hudson Valley seat held by retiring Democrat Maurice Hinchey and the Queens district held by Republican Bob Turner. Turner, in response, is now running for the U.S. Senate against incumbent Kirsten Gillibrand (D). According to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, six of the seven GOP-held U.S. House seats will be less safe for incumbents, while at least four Democratic incumbents will face less friendly districts.

New legislative districts were approved by the legislature last week and signed into law by Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D). The districts still need to be approved by the Justice Department to ensure that they comply with the Voting Rights Act. Additionally, a court case brought by Democrats against the addition of a 63rd seat in the Senate is pending. They argue that the new seat is nothing but an attempt by the GOP to retain their majority in the chamber, while Republicans argue it is required by the state Constitution.

Meanwhile, it is appearing more likely that New York will have two different primary dates for state legislative and congressional primaries. A judge has moved the congressional primary to June 26. While the Democrat-controlled Assembly favors moving the legislative primary to June 26 as well, the Republican-controlled Senate prefers to keep the primary on September 11, so as not to disrupt the legislative calendar.

State news

Alaska

After the Alaska Supreme Court remanded the redistricting challenge to the superior court, Judge McConahy set an April 2 deadline for submitting new plans and an April 13 deadline for review and adoption by the Board. Opponents were also invited to file their own map submissions by April 2 or file objections to the adopted plan by April 23. The board was given until April 27 to respond to any objections. McConahy set a May 7 court date for revisiting the plans.

Although the Alaska Redistricting Board had already scheduled meetings to make the necessary revisions, it questioned McConahy’s authority to establish the timeline. On March 16, attorneys for the Board asked McConahy vacate the order establishing the deadlines. On March 21, McConahy agreed to vacate the order. The board now plans to complete the revised map by June 1–Alaska’s filing deadline for legislative candidates. The board will hold a series of meetings each day next week to begin work on the new map. Citizens unable to attend the meetings in person may participate via streaming video or teleconference.

• Dates and other information on the meetings can be found here.

Arizona

On Wednesday, the Arizona State Senate approved an additional $700,000 appropriation to the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission. The Senate voted 18-9 to approve the measure which had been sent to its chamber by the House. The commission had sought an extra $1.1 million.

Meanwhile, House speaker Andy Tobin (R) is considering whether the Legislature will sue to attempt to block the legislative and congressional redistricting maps.

Florida

Yesterday, the Florida State Senate passed a revised chamber map, seeking to comply with changes mandated by the Florida Supreme Court. On March 10, the state’s High Court rejected the original maps, finding eight districts unconstitutional and ruling that district numbers had been assigned as to favor particular incumbents over others. Ultimately, 24 districts were modified to accommodate the changes to the eight rejected by the court. The revised numbers were picked using Bingo machines.

Despite these modifications, Democratic leaders maintain that the revised maps still violate the 2010 “Fair Districts amendment by favoring incumbents. The plan was approved 31-6 with five Democratic senators supporting the plan. The House is expected to pass the plan.

• The overturned plan can be found here.
• The revised plan can be found here.

Meanwhile, court challenges are pending against Florida’s new congressional districts. Last Friday, a state circuit court judge said he will likely begin hearing the challenges next month. The challenges were filed by a collection of voter groups and the Florida Democratic Party. Florida’s petition filing deadline is in May and the candidate qualifying deadline is in June.

Kansas

This week, the Kansas House of Representatives rejected two competing redistricting plans, sending lawmakers back to the drawing board. The committee map, approved on March 14, floundered in the House until it was replaced by Rep. Tom Arpke (R). The replacement map passed 70-51 in a preliminary vote on Tuesday. However, House Speaker Mike O’Neal (R), an advocate of the original map, sharply criticized the map and the House promptly voted it down on Wednesday, 48-76. It now appears that neither map is destined for passage. Another, Senate-drawn congressional map appears doomed as well.

As House lawmakers begin drafting a consensus map, it appears likely that parts of Shawnee County will be used to bolster the 1st Congressional District. The now-dead committee bill moved a portion of Wyandotte County–home to Democratic-leaning Kansas City–into the conservative 1st Congressional District of Kansas. The Senate chose a bipartisan map that kept Wyandotte in the 3rd Congressional District of Kansas, drawing population for District 1 from Riley County.

Meanwhile, a Kansas State Senate panel approved a chamber map on Monday, protecting three incumbent Republicans from conservative challengers. The changes would protect Carolyn McGinn, Tim Owens, and Jean Schodorf.

Maryland

Maryland’s redistricting process was marked by rampant criticism and several lawsuits, but in the end, congressional and legislative maps were passed without great incident. Some of the greatest anger came toward the legislative maps, which became law without having hearings in the General Assembly. Lawmakers put forth a number of alternative plans, but none of them saw hearings either. With new districts in place and anger subsided, a slate of bills have been proposed to reform the next round of redistricting.

Nine bills in total have been heard by committees, but so far no votes have been taken. Most legislators don’t appear optimistic at their chances of passing. Suggested reforms include creating task forces to study redistricting, increasing the time for public comment, and creating a bipartisan commission to draw the districts and remove political considerations from the process.

Mississippi

In 2011, Mississippi lawmakers failed to redraw their legislative boundaries. As a result, the 2011 elections were held using the map from the 2000 Census. Republicans ultimately took control of both the Senate and House. Now, legislators must once again attempt to draw new districts using the 2010 Census. The legislature will be accepting public input through mid-April before embarking on another attempt at completing the constitutionally-mandated redistricting process.

Missouri

The Missouri Supreme Court has missed a scheduled hand-down day as candidates wait for it to rule on challenges to the state’s congressional and state House districts. The court could release the ruling on a special day, but some are concerned that the Court could now miss the state’s March 27 filing deadline.

South Carolina

Earlier in March, a three-judge federal panel dismissed a lawsuit that alleged racial discrimination in South Carolina’s new districts. This week, six voters have appealed that ruling up to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court has not yet decided if it will take up the case.

Tennessee

Last Friday, March 16, Democrats filed a lawsuit against the Republican-drawn Tennessee State Senate redistricting maps. The suit argues that the Tennessee State Senate map unnecessarily splits too many counties. The implemented map splits eight counties while a map drawn by the General Assembly Black Caucus map would split five.

West Virginia

On January 20, the US Supreme Court stayed a federal court ruling requiring West Virginia lawmakers to redraw the state’s congressional redistricting map. The state has until March 27 to file a brief with the Supreme Court or seek an extension on the stay. If the case does not go before the Court, the lower court’s ruling will take effect and the maps will be redrawn. The court will likely make a decision on whether to consider the appeal by this fall.

Wisconsin

Yesterday, a three-judge federal panel upheld Wisconsin’s new congressional and State Senate districts, but ordered two Milwaukee-area Assembly districts to be redrawn for violating the Voting Rights Act. The panel held that the map unfairly diluted Latino voting power and ordered the map back to the legislature, mandating that lawmakers redraw Districts 8 and 9 without affecting any other districts. In the meantime, the Wisconsin Government Accountability Board has been barred from implementing the new map.

Although the judges upheld the great majority of the districts drawn by Republicans, they harshly criticized the process, calling it “needlessly secret” and stating that every effort was undertaken in order to complete the work out of the public eye. The legislature recently adjourned their 2012 session and it is unclear how they will take up the task, especially since the state Senate is evenly divided following Republican Pam Galloway‘s resignation on March 17.

The court challenge was first filed back in June 2011, prior to the passage of maps. Throughout the process the panel criticized Republicans for unnecessary secrecy, ordering them to release documents numerous times. Among these were agreements signed by nearly all Republican legislators stating they would not discuss the maps while they were in progress. Still, with the ruling, state Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen (R) called it a win for GOP leaders.

Newsletter Signup

Edited by Al Ortiz

Two more measures have been tacked on to the Tuesday Count total, with one proposal being twenty years in the making. While the count rose to 76 ballot measures in 28 states, registered Ohio voters will decide on a ballot question with deep implications regarding the state constitution.

In the Buckeye State, a constitutional convention question appears on the ballot every 20 years. The question asks voters whether to create a convention to revise, alter or amend the state constitution. The last time a constitutional convention question appeared on the ballot in the state was in 1992. That measure was defeated. Of the four constitutional convention questions that have been previously placed on the ballot in Ohio since 1932, none have ever been approved.

In 2010, four constitutional convention questions were on statewide ballots. Of those four, only one obtained a majority of the vote. That measure, approved in Maryland by state voters, did not result in a convention.

The measure, according to the state constitution, needed to have the approval of those who turned in an election ballot for the position of Governor and not just the majority of those who simply voted on the measure. Reports stated that the proposal fell short and a constitutional convention would not be held. Only 48% voters who voted for the position of Governor voted ‘yes’ on the question, essentially voting down the measure, according to preliminary figures from the Maryland State Board of Elections.

This week’s other ballot certification came from the state of North Dakota, where a competitive brawl is taking place surrounding the University of North Dakota’s use of the “Fighting Sioux” mascot. On March 13, North Dakota Secretary of State Al Jaeger announced that the signature verification process was complete and the North Dakota University “Fighting Sioux” Referendum was qualified to appear on the June 12 ballot.

According to Secretary Jaeger, 14,901 names of the 16,824 that were submitted were validated, which put referendum supporters 1,449 signatures ahead of the 13,452 that were required.

Though the measure is certified to appear on the ballot in June, it is still not entirely clear that the referendum will make it that far. In February the North Dakota Board of Higher Education filed a lawsuit with the state aiming to keep the question off the ballot. The state Supreme Court is currently reviewing the lawsuit.

In other news, Kentucky voters may see a ballot measure relating to redistricting when they flock to the polls this November. The state legislature is currently reviewing the proposal after the Kentucky Supreme Court overturned the state’s legislative districts on February 24.

The measure would set new standards for the process of redistricting for the Kentucky Legislature. Specifically, the measure would require the general assembly to remain in session without pay if it fails to complete redistricting by April 15. The April 15 date is the mandatory deadline to end a state legislative session in even-numbered years.

The measure was approved by the Senate State and Local Government Committee on March 14, 2012 with a vote of 9-0, sending the measure to the full state senate for a vote. If the measure is approved by that chamber, it would then be sent to the Kentucky House of Representatives for a similar vote.

Gambling is also at the forefront of the ballot measure world, with that particular topic being considered in Rhode Island. Although Rhode Island voters are already going to be served up one casino measure on their fall ballot, the state legislature is trying to hand them a second helping.

On February 29, 2012, the House Finance Committee endorsed putting a question on the ballot that would authorize casino games at Newport Grand.

The measure is similar to the other casino amendment already on the ballot that would authorize casino games at Twin River. This sent the proposal to the full chamber for a vote. The state house then voted to approve the measure with a tally of 69 to 3, sending it to the Rhode Island State Senate. If the senate approves the bill, it would then be decided by the public.

Quick hits

• Alternate legislative proposal emerges regarding Idaho animal cruelty initiative: On March 12, a legislative response to the Idaho Felony Animal Cruelty Initiative crystallized when the state Agricultural Affairs Committee reviewed and approved a bill similar to the initiative. Then on March 15, the House passed the bill with a vote of 64 to 4, sending it to the Idaho State Senate. If approved there, the measure would forgo a public vote and become a law.^[1][2]
• Three initiative petitions approved for circulation in Michigan: On March 19, the Board of State Canvassers approved petitions for three initiated constitutional amendments. Two, the Michigan “Protect Our Jobs” Amendment and the Michigan Home Health Care Amendment, are labor union related, while the third is the Michigan Declaration of Independence Language Amendment, is independently sponsored.^[3]
• Minnesota House Rules Committee approves voter ID amendment: On March 19, the Minnesota Rules and Legislative Administration Committee approved the Minnesota Voter Identification Amendment, thereby passing it on to the full House. A vote by the House on the amendment has not yet been scheduled.^[4]

SPOTLIGHT:Four states to host April 3 elections
In two weeks, the states of Colorado, Florida, Missouri and Wisconsin will all hold local elections on April 3.

In Colorado and Florida, just one measure will appear on a local ballot. However in Wisconsin, thirty-seven counties will vote on local ballot issues, mostly dealing with school bonds and taxes.

• Some notable non-school issues in Milwaukee County will be voted on by twelve municipalities. They will vote on two issues concerning the county board – whether to reduce the number of board members by half, as well as make their job a part time position. Though the questions are just advisory, those in favor of the Board being reduced are hopeful county officials will take the residents’ vote seriously.
• Additionally, there will be a total of thirty school issues decided. Most ask residents to allow for levy increases and exceed set revenue limits so that schools have more available funds for operational costs.
• Another notable school measure in the Beloit School District area is seeking approval of a bond in the amount of $70 million. The bond money would go towards general facility improvement and maintenance costs as well as building additions to a few of the schools in the district.

Also, today in Illinois residents throughout the state will vote on varying local issues ranging from electricity aggregation to city and county tax issues. An estimated 391 measures are on county ballots throughout the state.

Click here for a full list: March 20, 2012 ballot measures in Illinois

A recent ballot measure certification in Nebraska deals with what political topic? Click here to find out!

BALLOT LAW UPDATE

Ninth Circuit upholds distribution requirement: On March 14, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Nevada’sdistribution requirement. The decision in Angle v Miller comes after two successful challenges, each resulting in changes to the state’s requirment. For more on the history of Nevada’s distribution requirement, click here.^[5]

• The full decision in the case can be found here.

Nebraska repeals residency requirement: On March 14, the Governor of Nebraska, Dave Heineman, signed Legislative Bill 759 into law. The bill repeals the state’s residency requirement–a law that prohibits out-of-state residents from gathering signatures for state ballot measures. The restriction was declared unconstitutional last year in Citizens in Charge v. Gale.^[6][7]

• Official bill information can be found here.

WA Court Upholds Liquor Measure: On March 19, Cowlitz County Superior Court Judge Stephen M. Warning reversed his decision invalidating Initiative 1183. The measure, passed in 2011, privatized liquor sales and also allocated $10 million dollars for public safety efforts. Warning initially held that these two provisions together violated the state’s single-subject rule. However, he was ultimately persuaded to reverse the decision given the connection between liquor regulation and public safety. Opponents will likely appeal the decision.^[8]

A new update will be released on March 28, 2012. Click here for past Ballot Law Update reports!

Edited by Greg Janetka

While the majority of legislative and congressional maps have been passed into law, several are still being fought in the courts, and a number of those awaiting approval have already ended up before a judge.

In New York, U.S. Magistrate Judge Roanne Mann has been appointed by a federal three-judge panel to act as special redistricting master. Assembly Democrats and Senate Republicans appeared at a hearing before Mann and the panel on Monday. The legislative leaders acknowledged they did not have an agreement on a new map of congressional districts, and Mann ordered them to submit plans by Wednesday. Outside groups were given until today to submit plans. Mann will consider all suggested maps and issue her own maps by March 12.

Currently, Mann only has authority over the drawing of congressional districts, but that could change. Legislative leaders have to report to the court by March 15, and if they are not making progress, the court will address legislative district lines as well.

On Wednesday, legislative leaders said they were unable to agree on a proposed congressional map. Instead, three legislative conferences – Senate Republicans, Assembly Republicans and Assembly Democrats – submitted their own plans. Senate Democrats chose not to submit a plan because, as spokesman Mike Murphy explained, “Politicians should not be drawing the lines.”^[1]

While all the proposals differed, the three parties each urged the court to preserve the seats of incumbents and agreed that the district held by Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D), who is retiring, should be one of the two eliminated. Since the proposals were all submitted separately, they are not legally binding and Mann is not required to adopt any of them. However, if the legislature and Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) are able to agree on a plan soon, the court may have to defer to it.

The court also announced it will hire Nathaniel Persily, a professor at Columbia Law School, as an adviser to Mann. Persily recently served as special master in Connecticut. He will be paid $400 an hour for his work.

Meanwhile, details have started to emerge on a possible deal between Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) and the Legislature to create a constitutional amendment to change the state’s redistricting process. The plan under discussion would create a 10 member panel made up of eight members appointed by legislators, who would then select the remaining two. A Constitutional change requires the approval of two consecutively elected legislatures and thus would take years to implement. If approved it would not be in effect until redistricting following the 2020 census.

State news

Florida

Under Florida law, the Florida Supreme Court is required to review the state’s legislative redistricting maps. On Wednesday, the Court heard oral arguments in that review. This is the first time legislative maps have had to conform to the “Fair Districts” amendment approved in 2010. As such, the court asked a range of questions intended to guide the court in interpreting the new law.

Attorneys for the state argued that the maps were drawn fairly, and that the lawmakers who drafted the maps did not known where incumbents lived. However, attorneys opposing the maps argue that the plan’s pro-Republican bent speaks for itself. If the Court does mandate revisions, the legislature may have to hold a special session. The regular session ends on March 9.

Hawaii

On February 27, the Hawaii Reapportionment Commission released updates to their revised redistricting maps. The Commission’s original maps were struck down by the Hawaii Supreme Court. The updates were made in response to comments made about the revised maps released after the ruling. The changes will affect several Oahu House districts, reunifying several communities on the island. These amendments will not change the number of incumbents paired by the plain. A list of the communities affected can be found here.

Kansas

Like many state legislatures, the Kansas State Legislature typically allows each chamber to draw its respective redistricting map. This tradition, however, is on the rocks as lawmakers consider plans to redraw the state’s legislative maps. House Speaker Mike O’Neal (R) has suggested that the House may tweak the Senate plan to garner additional support. One Senate plan under consideration has already drawn criticism for combining two southern districts and pairing two incumbents. The Kansas House of Representatives has already approved a chamber map, passing the plan 109-14 on February 9. Since Republicans hold decisive majorities in both chambers, much of controversy has arisen from the conflict of moderate and conservative Republicans.

In addition, Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback (R) has taken a more active role in redistricting, suggesting that lawmakers form a single Senate district for Leavenworth County and keep KSU in an eastern congressional district. The county is currently split between two Democratic districts. Manhattan (and KSU) have been moved into a western district under one congressional proposal. Opponents, however, contend that Brownback is essentially targeting former Democratic opponents with the suggestion. In addition, the KSU move could force lawmakers to divide Topeka or Kansas City.

Kentucky

Last Friday, the Kentucky Supreme Court overturned the state’s leglislative districts, upholding an earlier Circuit Court ruling. The Circuit Court held that the districts exhibited unacceptable population disparities and divided too many counties–both violations of the Kentucky Constitution. As a consequence of the High Court’s ruling, 2012 elections will take place in Kentucky’s existing legislative districts. In addition, since the filing deadline has already passed, candidates may not change their filing. This will force some candidates whose residences lie outside the old district lines to withdraw. A full opinion by the Supreme Court is still pending and legislators may wait until next year to revise the plans.

• The Supreme Court order can be found here.

• The Circuit Court ruling can be found here.

Pennsylvania

The state Supreme Court handed Republicans another defeat this week by ordering Speaker of the House Sam Smith (R) to call special elections for six vacant seats in the chamber. Residents of those districts called on the court to force Smith to schedule them but Smith said he couldn’t act until the Legislative Reapportionment Commission passes a new plan and the court approves it. Smith and Secretary of State Carol Aichele (R) asked that the lawsuit be dismissed, but the court sided against them. The special elections will be held in the districts drawn in 2001, which are much more favorable to Democrats than plans drawn up by the current Republican majority.

Rhode Island

Republicans are looking to file a lawsuit against the new districts approved by the legislature on February 8. Republicans are claiming that the new lines were drawn for political reasons only in order to help Democrats in the state. The main argument is with Districts 47 and 48, where only around 300 people needed to be moved from district 48 to 47 but 1,500 were moved instead. A consultant was paid to help draw the lines and he defended the current map saying the lines were drawn based on current fire districts in the area. Republicans countered that the lines do not actually follow those of the fire districts. They also noted that their proposed lawsuit is not intended to help one candidate or another but rather to ensure that residents are not inconvenienced in voting. However, others have stated that the proposed Republican map is no better than what has already been approved. Several contentious issues arose during state redistricting, notably that the new districts could adversely affect minority populations.

Texas

The politically contentious redistricting cycle is finally winding down in Texas as the panel approved interim maps and set a primary date. On Tuesday, the three-judge panel in San Antonio issued interim maps for congressional and state House districts. Republicans on the whole saw the maps as a victory — an analysis by the state GOP showed that the party only lost one state House seat from their original map and showed that they could win 100 of the 150 state House seats up in November.

Democrats and minority rights groups, however, were not happy with the maps and turned their attention to a federal court in Washington as a last ditch effort. They asked for an expedited decision in a pending case that is examining whether the original maps drawn by the Legislature violate the Federal Voting Rights Act. The interim maps released by the court are based on the original maps and the groups argue that because of this the new maps have the same “intentional discrimination” as the Legislature’s maps. The Washington court said it would probably rule sometime this month.

Meanwhile, the San Antonio court on Thursday set the primary date for May 29 and re-opened candidate filing from today through March 9. While some are upset that Texas has been taken out of Super Tuesday, most citizens – politicians and voters alike – seem happy to finally have a date set.

Wisconsin

A federal three-judge panel is now deliberating on a case that seeks to have the state’s new district maps thrown out. The trial was supposed to get under way on February 21, but that was delayed by two days when the court directed attorneys in the case to meet with legislators and ask them to consider altering the maps. Republicans said they would be willing to do so but that the law would not allow them. The court rejected this argument and asked them to reconsider a second time, but again they declined.

Following the GOP rejection, the case was put on a fast track. Plaintiffs dropped several allegations from the suit, including charges that Assembly districts in black neighborhoods were inappropriately drawn and that the discriminatory effects of the maps were intentional. That leaves only two main issues for the court to decide – if the maps unconstitutionally dilute Latino voting power and if some 300,000 citizens were moved needlessly, delaying their vote in Senate elections from the usual four years to six. Presiding Judge J.P. Stadtmueller said a written decision would be issued in the next few weeks.

By Tyler Millhouse

Since the beginning of the year, 49 laws have been proposed in 19 states affecting the initiative and referendum process, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.^[1] February marks the start of our 2012 legislation tracking. We’ll be working through March to build and develop our list of proposed laws. The Ballot Law Update is released on the last Wednesday of each month. Stay tuned to the Tuesday Count for weekly ballot law news.

Recent news

• Walker to let recall count stand: After unsuccessfully seeking a second extension to the signature review period, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker (R) has announced that he will not challenge the recall signatures filed against him. Walker contends that the first, 20-day extension did not provide his team enough time to review the signatures. Wisconsin does not have a central voter registration database, and more than 1 million signatures were submitted.^[2] Nevertheless, Walker’s legal team won a victory in early January that forced the Wisconsin Government Accountability Board to examine recall signatures more thoroughly.^[3] In a February 27 press release, Walker’s campaign expressed confidence that this ruling would guide the GAB in verifying the signatures.

• Georgia signer ID requirement: On February 22, a Georgia bill (SB 377) died in committee. The bill would have required citizens to show a state-issued ID upon signing a candidate petition. Georgia does not have statewide initiative and referendum.^[4]

• Attorney fees in dual NE challenges: After losing to plaintiffs on several key points in Bernbeck v. Gale and Citizens in Charge v. Gale, the state of Nebraska has agreed to pay ACLU litigators $275,000 in legal fees. The ACLU had sought $303,000, but ultimately accepted the lower negotiated amount.^[5]

• Measure to modify NE signature requirements: Kent Bernbeck, a ballot measure proponent in Nebraska, has started an initiative campaign to lower Nebraska’s signature requirements. In 1994, the basis for calculating the number of required signatures was changed from voters in the previous gubernatorial election to total registered voters. The decision, Duggan v Beermann, was based on an ambiguity in the Nebraska Constitution. Since the requirement is based on the present number of registered voters, petition sponsors can’t be sure of the total number of required signatures until the day they submit their signed petition. The proposed measure would restore the previous method of calculation and effectively lower the requirement. Bernbeck was involved in a successful lawsuit last year, Bernbeck v. Gale, that overturned Nebraska’s residency requirement for local petition sponsors.^[6]

Court actions

• Arguments heard in TABOR challenge: On February 15, a federal district judge heard argument in Kerr v. Colorado, challenging the state’s taxpayer bill of rights (TABOR). In a setback for defenders of the law, District Judge William Martinez argued against using a 1912 Oregon ruling in Pacific States Telephone & Telegraph v. State of Oregon as a precedent. The Colorado Attorney General has asked for the case to be dismissed, but a ruling on that motion is not expected for months.^[7][8]

• CA PERB triggers lawsuits: On February 13, the California Public Employee Relations Board ruled that a San Diego ballot measure constituted an unfair labor practice. The measure would provide new city employees with a 401k, bypassing the cash-strapped pension system. Although the measure was initiated by citizens, it was backed by the city attorney and mayor. The pair insist they acted as private citizens in their support of the measure, but the Board ruled that the measure was city-sponsored and, thus, was required to abide by the “meet and confer” process. The ruling has triggered two lawsuits intended to force the measure off the city ballot. The first challenged the law in regard to fair labor practices. The second argued that measure was a revision–not an amendment–of the city charter and, thus, could not be initiated by citizens. On February 21, Judge William Dato ruled that the question of the measure’s validity (in regard to fair labor practices) should be addressed after the election. On February 24, Judge Steven Denton rejected the second lawsuit, arguing that it did not change the “framework or structure” of city government.^[9][10][11]

• Arguments heard in CA affirmative action ban lawsuit: On February 13, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments in a January 2010 complaint challenging the ban on affirmative action at state schools. Plaintiffs argue that the ban, passed in 1996 as Proposition 209, violates their civil rights and hamstrings California state schools attempting to enroll a diverse class. The ban was already upheld in 1997, but opponents argue that the ban should be reconsidered in light of Grutter v. Bollinger which upheld the University of Michigan Law School’s consideration of race.^[12]

• Decision in Lux v. Judd: On February 8, a judge for the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned Virginia’s in-district residency requirement. Under existing law, candidate petition circulators must be eligible to vote for the office for which they are collecting signatures. This limits the pool of potential circulators to residents of each congressional or legislative district. The judge ruled that requirement restricted first amendment rights without being narrowly tailored to the state’s interest in electoral integrity.^[13] Although Virginia does not permit voters to initiate statewide ballot measures, an earlier ruling in the case  has already had broader implications for ballot measure law. Prior the 4th Circuit ruling, a bill to repeal the requirement (HB1133) was proposed in theVirginia General Assembly. It has since been passed by both chambers.^[14]

• The full decision can be found here.

• Proposition 8 ruling: On February 6, a 9th Circuit Court of Appeals panel issued its decision in Perry v. Brown. The panel upheld rulings by district court judges Vaughn Walker and James Wareoverturning California’s Proposition 8. The court ruled that the same-sex marriage ban violated the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause. The ruling states:

Although the Constitution permits communities to enact most laws they believe to be desirable, it requires that there be at least a legitimate reason for the passage of a law that treats different classes of people differently. There was no such reason that Proposition 8 could have been enacted… Under California statutory law, same-sex couples had all the rights of opposite-sex couples, regardless of their marital status…

In effect, the court concluded that, because California statutes had already established equal rights for same-sex couples, the measure only served to deny these relationships the designation of “marriage.” This, according to the court, was not a legitimate purpose for treating these couples differently under the law. The panel, consisting of Judges Michael Hawkins, Stephen Reinhardt andRandy Smith, was split in its decision with Judge Randy Smith concurring in part and dissenting in part. The panel upheld the decisions of Judge Ware as well as Judge Walker, whose original decision has been challenged on the grounds that Walker had an undisclosed long-term relationship with another man at the time of the case. On February 21, defenders of Proposition 8 asked the full court to reconsider the decision.^[15][16]

• The full decision can be found here.

• Proposition 8 trial video ruling: In a separate ruling, issued on February 3, the Ninth Circuit panel refused to release the videos from the original trial. The panel held that Judge Walker “promised the litigants that the conditions under which the recording was maintained would not change — that there was no possibility that the recording would be broadcast to the public in the future.” Because of this, the judges determined that, “The integrity of our judicial system depends in no small part on the ability of litigants and members of the public to rely on a judge’s word. The record compels the finding that the trial judge’s representations to the parties were solemn commitments,” and that the video’s should not be released.^[17]

• The full decision can be found here.

Bills to watch

• Wisconsin Senate Bill 367: SB 367 would ban pay-per-signature for recall petition circulators. It would also empower the Wisconsin Attorney General to investigate duplicate signatures and prosecute individuals for fraudulent duplicates. Wisconsin has recall, but not initiative and referendum.

• Arizona Senate Concurrent Resolution 1031: SCR 1031 would impose sunsets on state ballot measures that make appropriations. Each measure would be automatically resubmitted to voters after five complete fiscal years.

• Florida House Joint Resolution 1231: HJR 1231 proposes a system for statewide veto referendum in Florida. Under current law, Floridians may only initiate constitutional amendments.

Edited by Geoff Pallay

During the 2011 legislative session, Minnesota lawmakers failed to establish new congressional and legislative districts. The Republican-controlled legislature managed to pass maps, but these were vetoed by Democratic governor Mark Dayton. And so Minnesotans waited for court maps to be released, dictating the next 10 years of district lines.

On Tuesday, February 21, the judicial panel in charge of drawing Minnesota’s new legislative and congressional districts completed its work. In total, the legislative maps pair a staggering 46 incumbents. In the House, the plan pairs 30 incumbents or 1 in 5 state representatives — this leaves 15 open House seats. In the Senate, the plan pairs 16 incumbents or nearly 1 in 4 state senators — this leaves 8 open Senate seats.

The congressional districts show fewer significant changes. Most notably, the plan moved conservative and former presidential candidate Rep.Michele Bachmann (R) into District 4 with Rep. Betty McCollum (D). However, Bachmann has already announced that she will again run in the6th District. No other incumbents were displaced. However, partisan control in both Democratic District 4 and Republican District 2 has been somewhat weakened.

• Interactive versions of the new maps can be found here.

• The court order establishing the new maps can be found here.

• A breakdown of the pairings and open seats can be found here.

State news

Florida

Oral arguments in the Florida Supreme Court’s review of the state’s new legislative districts have been scheduled for February 29th. Counsel for the state will have 90 minutes to make arguments in favor of the House and Senate maps. So far the court has denied opponents the opportunity to file alternative maps and requested the addresses of incumbent lawmakers. Florida law requires the court to review state redistricting maps but not congressional maps.

Kentucky

The Kentucky Supreme Court heard arguments today in the appeal of a County Circuit judge’s ruling that overturned the state’s new legislative districts. Since county precinct maps are based on the state maps, counties may be forced to revise their plans if the decision is upheld.

Maryland

Gov. Martin O’Malley‘s (D) plan for new legislative districts became law today after the House and Senate declined to vote on it. Under state law, the governor submits a plan to the Assembly, who can then either adopt it or an alternative plan if they so chose. If they do not act on the plan at all it becomes law after 45 days. At least eight alternative plans were put forth in the House, but committee leaders decided against giving any of them a hearing. The plan creates two additional African-American majority districts and a new Hispanic majority district.

The fight is not yet over, however. The state Republican party and the Fannie Lou Hamer political action group said they intend to file a lawsuit against the plan, alleging it violates the Voting Rights Act as well as the state Constitution.

Maryland will not hold legislative elections in 2012. All of the seats in the legislature will be up for election in 2014.

Missouri

The bi-partisan panel tasked with redrawing Missouri’s Senate districts approved a new plan yesterday, redrawing the 34-district map. The plan now faces a 15-day public comment period before the plan can be officially approved by the panel. Backlash over the plan was swift. Senate Republicans denounced the plan and blocked an extension to the candidate filing period, complicating matters for potential candidates. Most notablely, the plan weakens Republican districts around St. Louis and pairs incumbent Senators Jane Cunningham (R) and Brian Nieves (R).

Montana

The Montana Districting and Apportionment Commission met last week to take a first look at the proposed legislative maps. The five-member commission is composed of two Democratic and two Republican appointees, as well as one member chosen by the State Supreme Court. The commission will now take the drafts to gather public input across the state. The maps won’t go into effect until the2014 elections. This fall’s races will be conducted using the maps drawn after the 2000 Census. This is the standard timeline used inMontana. In the last redistricting cycle, the commission was controlled by Democrats, 3-2. Republicans contend that that map was drawn with a partisan slant in favor of Democrats.

New Hampshire

Republican leaders in the House are standing together in an attempt to quash dissension in their party regarding the new map. The House delegation from Manchester said they oppose the plan as they believe it could cost the city two representatives. To that end, they agreed to sustain a veto by Gov. John Lynch (D) that they believe will occur. In response, a five-page letter blasting critics of the plan and signed by over 40 Republican House members was sent out to all members of the chamber. The House previously passed the bill by a vote of 205-68, but it must now pass the Senate, who is not expected to vote on it until next month.

On the congressional side, U.S. Reps. Frank Guinta (R) and Charlie Bass (R) must have their districts balanced–their two districts are about 200-300 individuals apart. That has reportedly led to a long internal party fight behind-the-scenes. Republican leaders and Guinta are said to want minimal changes, while Bass is seeking to add a number of Republican towns to his district, including Merrimack, Hampstead and Plaistow.

New Mexico

After the state Supreme Court rejected initial state House plans drawn by retired judge James Hall, two new verisons have appeared this week. Hall has altered the map to comply with the high court’s directives. One proposal would pair current House speaker Ben Lujan Sr.with fellow Democrat Nick Salazar (Lujan is not running for re-election). The other proposal would pair Salazar with Thomas Garcia. The proposals can be seen here and here.

New York

This week the three-judge panel appointed in the case of Favors v. Cuomo rejected calls from legislative leaders seeking to dismiss the case and instead appointed U.S. Magistrate Judge Roanne Mann as special master. The panel ordered all parties to appear before them and Mann on Monday. Mann will then prepare a report and make recommendations to the panel. The case was brought last November by a group of civic leaders who asked for a special master to take over redistricting as the legislature showed itself incapable of the job.

Meanwhile, aides to Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) said that, despite comments by Cuomo last Friday, he is still prepared to veto the new legislative districts. The governor had said he would consider withholding the veto if three steps are taken – redraw the lines in a fairer manner than those in the first draft, work to pass a constitutional amendment that would put an independent system in place for the next redistricting cycle, and rework the current redistricting law in case the amendment fails. On Wednesday, 22 Senate Democrats signed a letter to Cuomo, urging him to veto the plan and ensuring him that they would be able to block a potential veto override.

On the congressional map front, Assemblyman John McEneny (D), who serves as co-chair of the Legislative Task Force on Demographic Research and Reapportionment, said on Monday that Assembly Democrats and Senate Republicans had both drawn up maps but had not yet met to compare them. The last two rounds of redistricting in 1992 and 2002 saw the Assembly and Senate pass separate plans, leading to court involvement.

Pennsylvania

The Legislative Reapportionment Commission was expected to issue revised maps this week, and, while it met on Wednesday, it did not release any maps or hold a vote. The next meeting is scheduled for February 28. The commission was forced to get back to work following the state Supreme Court’s decision to throw out the maps in January. The court ordered this year’s elections to take place in the districts drawn following the 2000 census, but some had still hoped there would be time to put new maps in place prior to the April 24 primary.

Senate Majority Leader Dominic Pileggi (R) initially said the legislature might consider moving the primary back, but this week said he expects them to be held on schedule. Without new districts, Speaker of the House Sam Smith (R) has been reluctant to call special elections for six vacant seats in the chamber. Residents of those districts called on the court to force Smith to schedule them but Smith says he can’t act until the Commission passes a new plan and the court approves it. Smith and Secretary of State Carol Aichele (R) have asked that the lawsuit be dismissed.

Wisconsin

A federal trial seeking to determine the constitutionality of new legislative and congressional districts was scheduled to begin on Tuesday, but the three-judge panel hearing the case said redistricting was better left to Wisconsin lawmakers than the court. To that end they asked attorneys in the case to meet with legislators and ask them to consider altering the maps. Republicans said they would be willing to do so but that the law would not allow them. The court rejected this argument and asked them to reconsider a second time, but again they declined.

With their refusal, the court began the trial on Thursday. If they do find problems with the map, it is unclear if the court will chose to redraw them or if they will order lawmakers to do so. The plaintiffs argue that the maps violate the United States Constitution and Federal Voting Rights Act by diluting Latino voting power and making some 300,000 citizens wait six years between voting in state Senateelections–rather than the normal four.

Wyoming

Last Friday the Wyoming House of Representatives passed a legislative redistricting bill for the state. Following a modification last week to prevent pairing incumbents Sen. Curt Meier and Wayne Johnson, the bill is expected to pass the Senate. The state saw marked growth over the past decade, but this growth left behind many of state’s counties, especially those along its eastern border. The plan was approved 49-9. Although the chamber is split 50-10 in favor of the GOP. Seven of the nine votes came from Republicans.

Newsletter Signup

Edited by Al Ortiz

The floodgates have been opened. Following the one certification in last week’s report, the Tuesday Count lunged upwards by 5 ballot measures, inflating the count to 66 ballot measures in 25 states.

One of those ballot measures was in Oklahoma, and dealt with the state parole process. The certified legislative referral would remove the Oklahoma Governor from the parole process in the state. According to reports, the proposal’s author was House Speaker Kris Steele. The bill’s formal title in this year’s state legislative session was Senate Joint Resolution 25.

The state House of Representatives passed the proposal on February 14 with a vote of 81-7. The measure had been previously passed by the Oklahoma State Senate, making the House vote the final legislative passage needed for ballot access.

The New Mexico Legislature had one of the shortest state legislative sessions this year, lasting about only one month. During that time though, the ballot in the southwest state got a little spicier with the addition of four LRCAs.

Three of the four relate to the state Public Regulation Commission, albeit in different ways.

The first measure would raise the qualifications required to be public regulation commissioner. Reports stated that legislative supporters were unsatisfied with the qualifications required to become a commissioner.

Next, a measure was passed to the ballot that would remove the job of chartering corporations from the Public Regulations Commission to the New Mexico Secretary of State. The last measure dealing with the state PRC would remove the insurance division from the Public Regulations Commission, and make it an independent entity.

The fourth ballot proposal of the group would make the office of state public defender separate from the state government.

Moving on from this week’s certifications, and only one state over from New Mexico, two recent 2012 legislative ballot proposals in Arizona could have a long-term impact on state elections.

The first one addresses the issue of taxes on the statewide ballot, which could create even more heat under the desert sun. The measure was introduced by State Rep. David Stevens, among others, who seek to require that any tax hike proposed in the state be only approved by a 2/3rds vote of the public. The bill’s formal title in session is HCR 2043.

The second proposal was filed to change an aspect of initiative rules. The measure would mandate that re-authorization votes take place regarding ballot initiatives. The measure was introduced, according to reports, because of concerns that after time passes, initiatives that commit money to certain uses will stay in place after they no longer serve their initial intended use. In order to overturn a voter-approved initiative, legislature must approve to do so with a three-fourths vote.

While legislative referrals dominated ballot question news, last week supporters of the Colorado Marijuana Legalization initiative turned in the additional signatures needed to make the ballot. Signatures are awaiting verification, but reports out of the state suggest that the approximately 12,000 additional signatures could help them reach the ballot.

The initiative would ask voters whether or not to legalize the use and possession of, at most, an ounce of marijuana for residents who are 21 and older.

Previously, supporters turned in signatures on January 4 to the Colorado Secretary of State‘s office. However, on February 3, the Colorado Secretary of State announced that the initiative effort had fallen short about 2,500 signatures. Sponsors then had until February 15 to submit the additional signatures needed.

In order to qualify the initiative, supporters must have gathered 85,853 valid signatures. Valid signatures must come from registered voters in the state.

Quick hits

• Trial begins over Alaska Parental Notification Initiative: On February 13, trial began over Alaska Ballot Measure 2, the “Parental Notification Initiative” found on the 2010 statewide ballot. Arguments were heard from both sides, with Assistant Attorney General John Treptow, arguing for the measure, saying, “Abortion is a complex and weighty decision. Once the decision is made to abort it can’t be reversed.” Dr. Philip Darney, professor of obstetrics, gynecology and reproductive sciences at the University of California, San Francisco, and director of the Bixby Center for Global Reproductive Health, argued against the measure, stating that abortion is “very safe”, and that the new law “doesn’t make public health sense.”^[1]

• New poll out on New Jersey Marriage Referendum: On February 14 results were released by the Rutgers Eagleton Institute of Politics that showed support for same-sex marriage in the state. According to reports, 54% of those polled were for the referendum, 34% against, 7% undecided, and 4% stated they were for civil unions but against gay marriage. The margin of error of the poll was plus or minus 3.3%.^[2]

• Quinnipiac University Polling Institute releases report on Ohio “Right to Work” Initiative: On February 14, 2012, a poll was released by Quinnipiac University Polling Institute, showing 54% supporting the measure, 40% opposed, and 6% undecided. The margin of error for the poll was 2.6%.^[3] This measure was proposed quickly after voters’ rejection last year of Issue 2, the veto referendum on the labor-related Senate Bill 5.

SPOTLIGHT:Michigan primary sees wide variety of issues to be decided
Next week, February 28, Michigan will have its primary election and thirty counties have posted information about local measures which will also appear on ballots. A total of 62 measures have been posted, including school bond and tax measures as well as city and county taxes. Some school measures of note include the East Lansing and Buchanan school bond measures. The East Lansing bond would be for $53 million which would go towards general renovations and upgrades for the schools. Committees have been formed to support the measure but also to look for other alternatives should the measure fail. In the Buchanan school district, the bond would be for $19.5 million and would be the second attempt by the district to pass a bond in the past two years. School officials looked for resident input after the previous bond failed in the hopes that this new one would better serve resident’s desires for the schools.

Also, a small election in some Wisconsin school districts will be held today.

From last week, the Latvian referendum to add Russian as an official language in the country failed with 75 percent of votes against.

Which state does not allow legislatively-referred constitutional amendments to be sent to the ballot? Click here to find out!

BALLOT LAW UPDATE

Prop. 8 defenders seek en banc hearing: Defenders of California’s Proposition 8 are asking for the full Ninth Circuit to rehear the case. Previously, the measure was struck down by a three-judge panel.^[4]

Attorney fees in dual Nebraska challenges: After losing to plaintiffs on several key points in Bernbeck v. Gale and Citizens in Charge v. Gale, the state of Nebraska has agreed to pay ACLU litigators $275,000 in legal fees. The ACLU had sought $303,000, but ultimately accepted the lower negotiated amount.^[5]

A new update will be released on February 29, 2012. Click here for past Ballot Law Update reports!