gerrymandering

fun fact: grandson namesake on NY? commission approved electric chairSEE GERRY 2 619
redmap did systemic long term damage TP--> freedom cocks, suicide squad, unaccountable old white guys --> voter suppression, anti-abortion ...see daley
see Redmap pgmpromoted to primary 1/18~ mod: see voter disenfranchise, voting machine, camp finance reform, capt 619=tool<a href="https://ballotpedia.org/Influencers">https://ballotpedia.org/Influencers</a>  includes gerry<a href="https://www.alternet.org/2019/06/everybody-hates-john-roberts/">https://www.alternet.org/2019/06/everybody-hates-john-roberts/</a><div>=</div><div>census related to gerry</div><div>---</div><div>
</div><div><div class="mag-header" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px 0px 19px; padding: 0px; position: relative; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><h3 class="magcat-titlte entry-title" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" open="Open" sans="Sans" sans-serif="sans-serif" letter-spacing="letter-spacing" px="px"><a href="https://www.alternet.org/2019/06/huge-victory-for-the-republican-party-legal-experts-weigh-in-on-supreme-courts-landmark-gerrymandering-decision/" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: all 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer; display: block; letter-spacing: 0px; line-height: 1.4;">Huge victory for the Republican Party’: Legal experts weigh in on Supreme Court’s landmark gerrymandering decision</a></h3><div class="grid-post-box-meta mag-meta" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 7px 0px 0px; padding: 0px;"><a href="https://www.alternet.org/author/alex-henderson/" title="Posts by Alex Henderson" class="author url fn" rel="author" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer;">Alex Henderson</a></div></div><div class="mag-excerpt entry-content" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled on gerrymandering, deciding that federal courts cannot block lawmakers in individual states from partisan gerrymandering in political districts. And legal experts have been weighing…</div></div><div>=</div>=<a href="https://www.alternet.org/2019/06/supreme-court-sends-census-citizenship-case-back-to-lower-court-after-bombshell-evidence-reveals-gops-true-motives/">https://www.alternet.org/2019/06/supreme-court-sends-census-citizenship-case-back-to-lower-court-after-bombshell-evidence-reveals-gops-true-motives/</a>no lnxSupreme Court sends census citizenship case back to lower court after bombshell evidence reveals GOP’s true motivesSTEPHEN WOLF / DAILY KOS27 JUN 2019 AT 15:30 ETIn a surprise decision that will help preserve fair political representation, the Supreme Court temporarily blocked the Trump administration from adding a question to the 2020 census asking U.S. residents about their citizenship status, instead sending the case back to lower court for it to explore explosive new evidence behind the GOP’s motives for including the question.The addition of this citizenship question would have likely had a chilling effect, intimidating millions of people in immigrant communities into not participating in the census. That in turn would have turbocharged a new wave of hyperpartisan Republican gerrymandering nationwide, since census data is the bedrock of redistricting.This impact was in fact the entire rationale behind this question: In a recent bombshell report, based on newly unearthed documents from a deceased GOP political consultant, Thomas Hofeller, Republicans admitted that rigging the census would eviscerate the political power of Democrats and voters of color.The Constitution mandates that every person in the U.S. be counted in the decennial census, without regard to their legal status. A question on citizenship hasn’t been included in the census since 1950, and even when it has appeared, it has never been asked of every single participant, as the Trump administration intended it to be in 2020. Furthermore, multiple lower courts had ruled that Trump’s attempt to add the question violated both federal law and the Constitution.Those courts uniformly dismissed the Trump administration’s claim that the Justice Department needed data on citizenship to enforce the Voting Rights Act as a bogus pretext that masked their true motives. Hofeller’s document trove revealed the GOP’s racist and partisan intent: allowing mapmakers to use citizenship statistics result in “a disadvantage to the Democrats” and to be “advantageous to Republicans and non-Hispanic whites.”Although the Census Bureau had planned to print millions of census forms in July, plaintiffs argued that it could delay printing until October to give the courts time to resolve the case. Now, the case will go back to the federal district court in New York that originally heard the matter. That will allow the judge to conduct an in-depth review of the new evidence and craft a ruling that addresses the Trump administration’s racial and partisan animus. In the likely event that the lower court once again blocks the question, the Supreme Court may let such a ruling stand following its latest decision.Given the blatant display of partisan and racial bigotry behind the GOP’s plans, this ruling averted a major blow to democracy that would have rivaled the harms of both 2000’s Bush v. Gore decision and the 2013 ruling that crippled the Voting Rights Act. Although the Supreme Court’s Republican majority has advanced an increasingly partisan agenda that undermines the rule of law, Trump’s malicious effort to weaponize the census simply proved to be too extreme for the court to accept.<div></div><div>new</div><div>
</div><div><div class="header-list-style" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; position: relative; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><h2 class="entry-title grid-title" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; letter-spacing: 1px;"><a href="https://www.alternet.org/2019/06/a-requiem-for-american-democracy-5-4-supreme-court-vote-rules-partisan-gerrymandering-is-beyond-the-reach-of-the-federal-courts/" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: all 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer; letter-spacing: 0px;">‘A requiem for American democracy’: 5-4 Supreme Court vote rules partisan gerrymandering is ‘beyond the reach of the federal courts’</a></h2><div class="grid-post-box-meta" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 12px 0px 0px; padding: 0px;"><a href="https://www.alternet.org/author/elizabeth-preza/" title="Posts by Elizabeth Preza" class="author url fn" rel="author" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer;">Elizabeth Preza</a> June 27, 2019</div></div><div class="item-content entry-content" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 18px 0px 0px; padding: 0px;">no lnx Supreme Court on Thursday in a 5-4 ideological split rejected limits to partisan gerrymandering, quashing an effort by advocates of political reform to rein in manipulative electoral district boundaries.
Chief justice John Roberts authored the ruling, which decided claims of partisan gerrymandering “present political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts.” The ruling states that federal courts lack the authority to curb gerrymandering, and overturned a lower court decision that ordered the redraw of North Carolina’s Republican-drawn districts in time for the 2020 election.
The Supreme Court didn’t just rule that these specific instances of partisan gerrymandering were OK. It said it will never draw that line — will never say that any specific gerrymander has gone too far. So, states will only get even more aggressive now.https://t.co/pZ7k21yfNb
— Sam Baker (@sam_baker) June 27, 2019
In her dissent, Justice Elena Kagan wrote that, “for the first time ever, this Court refuses to remedy a constitutional violation because it thinks the task beyond judicial capabilities.”Kagan’s conclusion. pic.twitter.com/jpjLjnBpyF
— Matt Ford (@fordm) June 27, 2019
Kagan’s conclusion in the partisan gerrymander cases is a requiem for American democracy. pic.twitter.com/yq6pCB2ALi— Matthew Segal (@segalmr) June 27, 2019
For some, the ruling served as a reminder for why Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) remains focused on confirming judges above most other legislative priorities.
This is why Mitch McConnell has long prioritized the courts over all issues except campaign finance. If you care most about winning the game, you need to control the body that shapes the rules of the game. https://t.co/hj1aN3yWy5— Alec MacGillis (@AlecMacGillis) June 27, 2019</div></div><div>=</div><a href="https://www.democracynow.org/2019/6/3/how_voter_suppression_gerrymandering_cleared_the">https://www.democracynow.org/2019/6/3/how_voter_suppression_gerrymandering_cleared_the</a>As Louisiana, Mississippi, Kentucky, Ohio and Georgia attempt to outlaw abortions after six weeks, Missouri legislators approve an eight-week ban and Alabama passes a near total ban on abortions, we speak to journalist Ari Berman about how the widespread attack on abortion rights across the country is tied directly to voter suppression. He writes in a recent piece for Mother Jones, “These states have something else in common: a systematic effort to distort the democratic process through voter suppression and gerrymandering. These tactics have greased the way for near-total bans on abortion and for other extreme right-wing policies.”<a href="https://www.democracynow.org/2019/6/3/ari_berman_gop_docs_prove_census">https://www.democracynow.org/2019/6/3/ari_berman_gop_docs_prove_census</a>Newly surfaced documents reveal that a now-dead senior Republican strategist who specialized in gerrymandering was secretly behind the Trump administration’s efforts to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census. The New York Times broke the story last week in an article that called Thomas Hofeller the “Michelangelo of gerrymandering.” When Hofeller died last August, he left behind a computer hard drive full of his notes and records. Hofeller’s estranged daughter found among the documents a 2015 study that said adding the citizenship question to the census “would be advantageous to Republicans and non-Hispanic whites” and “would clearly be a disadvantage to the Democrats.” Census officials estimate 6.5 million people will not respond to the census if the citizenship question is added. This undercount could affect everything from the redrawing of congressional maps to the allocation of federal funding. We get an update from Ari Berman, senior writer at Mother Jones, whose new piece is “Architect of GOP Gerrymandering Was Behind Trump’s Census Citizenship Question.”
 GOODMAN: Newly surfaced documents have revealed that a now-dead senior Republican strategist who specialized in gerrymandering was secretly behind the Trump administration’s efforts to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census. The New York Times broke the story last week in a <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/30/us/census-citizenship-question-hofeller.html" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; border: 0px;">story</a> that called Thomas Hofeller the “Michelangelo of gerrymandering.” When Hofeller died last August, he left behind a computer hard drive full of his notes and records. His estranged daughter found among the documents a 2015 study that said adding the citizenship question to the census would, quote, “be advantageous to Republicans and non-Hispanic whites” and “would clearly be a disadvantage to the Democrats,” unquote.Census officials estimate six-and-a-half million people will not respond to the census if the citizenship question is added. This undercount could affect everything from the redrawing of congressional maps to the allocation of federal funding.In a court filing Thursday, plaintiffs challenging the citizenship question accused two Trump administration officials of falsely testifying under oath about the Justice Department’s motivations for altering the census. The Supreme Court is also set to rule within weeks on whether Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross had the authority to add the citizenship question to the census.For more, we’re joined by Ari Berman, senior writer at Mother Jones, a reporting fellow at The Nation Institute, author of Give Us the Ballot: The Modern Struggle for Voting Rights in America. His new <a href="https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2019/05/architect-of-gop-gerrymandering-was-behind-trumps-census-citizenship-question/" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; border: 0px;">piece</a> is headlined “Architect of GOPGerrymandering Was Behind Trump’s Census Citizenship Question.”Ari Berman, welcome back to Democracy Now! It’s great to have you with us. So, lay out this exposé.ARI BERMAN: Good to see you again, Amy.So, this is really startling smoking-gun evidence in the census case that really undercuts why the Trump administration added this question. So, the Trump administration added the citizenship question, and they claimed it was needed to better enforce the Voting Rights Act. Well, these new documents from Tom Hofeller show that it was not needed to enforce the Voting Rights Act, and, in fact, the people that would be most harmed by the addition of the citizenship question—Latinos and other racial minorities—are the very groups the Voting Rights Act was designed to protect.And it clearly shows that this question was added to benefit the Republican Party, particularly white Republicans, because Tom Hofeller says in this unpublished study, that is now key evidence in this case, this would be clearly a disadvantage to Democrats and an advantage to Republicans.So there you have it. I mean, this is really black and white. You can’t get any more explicit than this. We now know for certain this is why the question was added to the census.AMY GOODMAN: And talk about how we know this. Talk about Hofeller’s estranged daughter.ARI BERMAN: Well, it’s a pretty wild story. So, there’s a separate case in North Carolina challenging the gerrymandering of state legislative districts. Tom Hofeller has been the go-to expert in the Republican Party for decades on redistricting. He has drawn some of the most extreme gerrymandered maps in places like North Carolina. And so, there’s a case challenging this map in North Carolina. And after Hofeller passed away, his daughter found hard drives with all of his work, and she gave it over to the plaintiffs challenging these gerrymandered—AMY GOODMAN: Gave it to Common Cause, right?ARI BERMAN: Gave it to Common Cause and other plaintiffs challenging the gerrymandering in North Carolina. Now some of this evidence has now become public. There is more here, too, by the way, Amy. We’re going to learn more about the role that Tom Hofeller has played in gerrymandering efforts in other cases. But this pertains directly to the census case.AMY GOODMAN: So, The New York Times calls him the “Michelangelo of gerrymandering.” Talk about his whole history and also how this could have legal bearing, and even going to the issue of the Supreme Court making a decision about Wilbur Ross adding the question, the citizenship question in the census.ARI BERMAN: So, Tom Hofeller is not a household name, but he’s been an extremely influential person in the Republican Party for decades. He has basically been the Republican Party’s go-to guy when it comes to redistricting. So he’s traveled, since the 1980s, state after state after state, drawn maps to boost Republican representation.And a lot of these maps, particularly after the 2010 election, have been struck down in court. So, really gerrymandered maps he drew in places like North Carolina and Ohio have been invalidated by the courts. In fact, the North Carolina congressional map that Hofeller drew was invalidated by the Supreme Court in an opinion written by Clarence Thomas, who found that it was an unconstitutional racial gerrymandering. So even Clarence Thomas thought that the maps that Hofeller was drawing were too extreme.And the fact that you had the architect of GOP gerrymandering drawing up the census citizenship question is so startling, Amy, because the census forms the basis for redistricting. So we have to have [a fair and accurate] census data to be able to draw fair districts. If we have skewed census data, that’s going to lead to skewed districts. So, even before they start the gerrymandering itself, they’re essentially gerrymandering the census to give themselves an advantage.AMY GOODMAN: So, in the ’90s, Thomas Hofeller led the Republican effort to oppose using statistical sampling to gain a more accurate count of nonwhite populations that the Census Bureau tended to miss. At the time, Hofeller wrote, quote, “A census that uses sampling and statistical adjustment will be the biggest victory for big government liberalism since the enactment of the Great Society.” I want to go to Hofeller speaking in 2001 at the National Conference of State Legislatures.<blockquote style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding-left: 30px; border-left: 3px solid rgb(241, 242, 243); letter-spacing: -0.2px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">THOMAS HOFELLER: Elisabeth Kübler-Ross wrote a book, On Death and Dying. Her five steps, I believe, can be applied to redistricting. And you can pick the people to whom they apply in the order in which they apply to those people. And those steps are—first is denial: “It couldn’t happen to me”; the next step is bargaining: “Maybe I can make a deal”; the next step is anger—none of us have ever experienced that in a redistricting process; next is depression; and, finally, acceptance. So, you might look at that, and maybe she’ll write a new book on redistricting grieving.</blockquote>AMY GOODMAN: That’s Thomas Hofeller comparing redistricting to death. Ari Berman?ARI BERMAN: Well, I mean, it is funny, because, I mean, redistricting has led to political deaths, if you think about what they’re doing in places like North Carolina. They’re trying to maximize Republican advantage. And basically, Hofeller is saying his goal with the census is to draw districts—it’s a little technical, Amy, but his goal with the census is to draw districts basically only counting citizens. So, for now and for decades, the way districts have been drawn is you count everybody. Everyone is entitled to representation, whether they are a voter or not, a citizen or not. What he’s saying is, we only want to draw districts counting citizens.What that means is that white Republicans will get a massive overadvantage. They’ll get a huge boost in representation. And minority areas, where there are a lot of immigrants, they will receive less representation. So, if this citizenship questions is on the census, it will lead to a huge transfer of power to whiter and more Republican areas. And Hofeller has stated that explicitly. And that’s why the citizenship question was added to the census.AMY GOODMAN: Ari, you write, “[M]embers of Trump’s team may not have been fully forthcoming in their testimony under oath. Neither Trump transition team member Mark Neuman nor John Gore, the former assistant attorney general for civil rights who wrote the Justice Department letter, mentioned Hofeller’s involvement in the letter when they were deposed under oath as part of a lawsuit by New York and 17 other states challenging the citizenship question.”ARI BERMAN: Yeah, so, the ACLU and other plaintiffs challenging the census citizenship question are trying to sanction these former Trump officials for lying under oath to conceal Tom Hofeller’s involvement in this case. There’s going to be a hearing in federal court in New York this week. And the big question is: Will this make its way to the Supreme Court? And will it matter? I mean, this case is going to be ruled on in a matter of weeks. The justices have likely already written their opinions. So, this is all very last-minute. And this evidence really, really undercuts the Trump administration’s claims of why they added this question. However, it still remains unclear whether this is going have any impact on the Supreme Court itself.<a href="https://www.alternet.org/2019/05/wyoming-republican-heres-how-the-two-party-system-and-partisan-gerrymandering-are-wrecking-democracy/">https://www.alternet.org/2019/05/wyoming-republican-heres-how-the-two-party-system-and-partisan-gerrymandering-are-wrecking-democracy/</a>Critics of United States politics often complain about the two-party system, noting that in many European parliamentary democracies, having five or six major parties in the federal government is the norm. But Wyoming Republican David Dodson, in a May 20 op-ed for the New York Times, addresses another problem that contributes to a lack of real competition in U.S. politics: party primaries, which Dodson complains, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/20/opinion/primary-challengers.html" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer;">discourage competition</a>.<div class="p1_10" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">“Through a series of anticompetitive tactics,” Dodson asserts, “the two political parties have created a hidden monopoly structure that accounts for a Congress with a 77% disapproval rating yet a nearly 90% reelection rate.”
In 2018, Dodson challenged incumbent U.S. Sen. John Barrasso in a GOP Senate primary in Wyoming, but Barrasso won the primary and the general election as well.
Dodson complains, “The political parties understand that in a political world made up mainly of partisan-drawn districts, where 90% of the seats in Congress are not competitive in the general election, controlling the primary process protects incumbents and controls the ultimate outcome.”
The Republican discusses his experience running against Barrasso in 2018, explaining, “When I contacted a law firm known to serve Republicans, that firm told me it couldn’t work for a candidate running against an incumbent because it would put its entire practice at risk. As I tried to build an organization to run a credible primary challenge, this story repeated itself, whether I was recruiting campaign staff or a marketing firm.”
Dodson offers some possible, solutions, however. First, Dodson writes, “nonpartisan committees must take control of the taxpayer-financed primary process and run a single primary ballot, forcing incumbents to compete with members of the opposing party as well as of their own party.”
Second, according to Dodson, “federal term limits would break incumbents’ domination, create more open seats and attract new talent to the political process.”And Dodson’s third recommendation is “a constitutional amendment against partisan gerrymandering so that voters choose their politicians instead of politicians choosing their voters.”
Dodson wraps up his op-ed by stressing that competition is as important to politics as it is to free-market capitalism.
“The monopolistic forces I witnessed are not inevitable,” Dodson writes. “The solution is to restore congressional accountability to where it belongs: with voters. Just as our economic engine relies on competition to remain healthy, so does our democracy.”
<a href="https://www.alternet.org/2019/04/as-supreme-courts-right-wing-justices-indicate-theyll-side-with-trump-opponents-denounce-bald-faced-attempt-to-racially-rig-us-census/">https://www.alternet.org/2019/04/as-supreme-courts-right-wing-justices-indicate-theyll-side-with-trump-opponents-denounce-bald-faced-attempt-to-racially-rig-us-census/</a>
Civil rights advocates decried the Trump administration’s attack on

immigrant rights and marginalized communities Tuesday as the Supreme

Court heard arguments regarding the potential addition of a citizenship

question to the 2020 census.

The nation’s highest court began deliberating Commerce vs. New York,

hearing from a number of rights groups who oppose Commerce Secretary

Wilbur Ross’s effort to add the question, “Is this person a citizen of

the United States?” to the 10-year survey of all U.S. residents.<div class="alt_ad_block story-page-in-content-graph-2">

</div>

The court’s more liberal judges and a number of critics argued that

the question would result in an inaccurate count of U.S. residents, with

many in immigrant communities declining to respond for fear of the

Trump administration’s aggressive anti-immigration agenda.

“This case isn’t just about a line on a form,” said Dale Ho, director

of the ACLU’s Voting Rights Project, after addressing the court. “It’s

about whether or not everyone in America counts. The administration’s

own estimate is that if you put this question on the census, 6.5 million

people won’t get counted.”

That’s a wrap! We just argued before the Supreme Court for a 2020 census that counts all communities. <a href="https://t.co/KQFehKAUYd">pic.twitter.com/KQFehKAUYd</a>

— ACLU (@ACLU) <a href="https://twitter.com/ACLU/status/1120780248206008323?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 23, 2019</a><div class="alt_ad_block story-page-in-content-graph-5">

</ins></div></blockquote>

“There’s no doubt that people will respond less,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-takes-up-trump-administrations-census-citizenship-question/2019/04/22/ac1db7b8-653e-11e9-a1b6-b29b90efa879_story.html?utm_term=.2fe0da740310">said</a> during the hearing. “If you’re talking about prediction, this is about 100 percent that people will answer less.”

Three federal judges have blocked the addition of the question, which has not appeared on a U.S. census since 1950.

Ross broke federal law when he moved to add the question, Judge Jesse Furman <a href="https://www.npr.org/2019/01/15/671283852/judge-orders-trump-administration-to-remove-2020-census-citizenship-question">argued </a>in

his January ruling in the Southern District of New York. The commerce

secretary claimed the question had been requested by the Justice

Department in order to ensure proper enforcement of the Voting Rights

Act. Ross had in fact asked the DOJ to make the request, Furman <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-appears-likely-allow-citizenship-question-2020-census-n997651">said.</a>

“There needs to be a reason to add the question, and I don’t see any reason,” Justice Elena Kagan <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-appears-likely-allow-citizenship-question-2020-census-n997651">said</a> Tuesday. “It did seem the secretary was shopping for a need.”

The Trump administration argues that the citizenship question is

needed to ensure proper enforcement of the Voting Rights Act—an argument

Justices John Roberts and Brett Kavanaugh <a href="https://www.thedailybeast.com/department-of-commerce-v-new-york-supreme-court-case-could-decide-2024-election-9">reportedly </a>appeared prepared to accept on Tuesday.

Author and voting rights advocate Ari Berman denounced the claim as a “complete farce.”

“Trump DOJ hasn’t filed [a] single lawsuit to enforce [the Voting

Rights Act] and has strongly supported GOP efforts to make it harder to

vote,” Berman tweeted.

It’s complete farce Trump admin argues

citizenship question on 2020 census needed to enforce Voting Rights Act.

Trump DOJ hasn’t filed single lawsuit to enforce VRA & has strongly

supported GOP efforts to make it harder to vote <a href="https://t.co/BgMmbghZu6">https://t.co/BgMmbghZu6</a>

— Ari Berman (@AriBerman) <a href="https://twitter.com/AriBerman/status/1120739204303028225?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 23, 2019</a></blockquote>

In addition to concerns about why and how Ross attempted to add the

question, civil rights groups say the citizenship question would have

grave implications for marginalized communities beyond 2020. The 10-year

survey of all residents in the U.S. is <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-appears-likely-allow-citizenship-question-2020-census-n997651">used to determine</a> how many representatives states have in the U.S. House, as well as appropriations of federal funding for local governments.

“The decisions about where to build hospitals, schools, roads, and

add new businesses are linked to the decennial count of the population,”

said the New York Immigration Coalition in a <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2019/04/23/countmein-immigrant-rights-community-rally-outside-supreme-court">statement.</a> “The distribution of more than $700 billion in federal resources is also tied to the census.”

“The facts are clear: the census is simply an enumeration of

residents, as constitutionally mandated,” said Steven Choi, executive

director of the New York Immigration Coalition. “Adding the citizenship

question will have an especially chilling effect on communities of

color, depriving immigrant-rich states of federal dollars and political

representation, while virtually erasing our communities.”

Common Cause, Planned Parenthood, and Make the Road New York were

among the groups who assembled outside the Supreme Court to call on the

justices to reject the addition of the question....==
citizen q censusca ny tex lose big time, fed funds, seats in congress

 U.S. Supreme Court

heard arguments Tuesday in a case challenging the Trump administration’s

plans to include a citizenship question on the 2020 census. Voting

rights activists fear that adding the question will deter immigrants

from participating in the census and lead to a vast undercount in states

with large immigrant communities. Census officials have estimated 6.5

million people will not respond to the census if the citizenship

question is added. This undercount could affect everything from the

redrawing of congressional maps to the allocation of federal funding.

The case centers on whether Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross had the

authority to add the question to the census. The American Civil

Liberties Union and 17 states have sued, saying Ross’s move was aimed at

deterring immigrants from participating in the census. During the oral

arguments, the court’s conservative majority appeared to side with the

Trump administration, while the liberal minority questioned the

administration’s motives and methods. Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor

said, “There’s no doubt that people will respond less. If you’re talking

about prediction, this is about 100 percent that people will answer

less.” We speak with Thomas Saenz, president and general counsel of the

Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund. MALDEF

is representing plaintiffs in one of the lawsuits challenging the

census citizenship question. We also speak with Ari Berman, senior

writer at Mother Jones. His new piece is titled “In Census Case, Supreme

Court Suddenly Cares a Lot About Voting Rights Act.”<hr class="hidden-xs" /><h5 class="transcript">Transcript</h5><div class="grey_description fine_print">This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.</div>JUAN GONZÁLEZ:

The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments Tuesday in a case challenging

the Trump administration’s plans to include a question on citizenship to

the 2020 census. Voting rights activists fear that adding the question

will deter immigrants from participating in the census and lead to a

vast undercount in states with large immigrant communities. Census

officials have estimated 6.5 million people will not respond to the

census if the citizenship question is added. This undercount could

affect everything from the redrawing of congressional maps to the

allocation of federal funding.

The case centers on whether Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross had the

authority to add the question to the census. The American Civil

Liberties Union and 17 states have sued, saying Ross’s move was aimed at

deterring immigrants from participating in the census. During the oral

arguments, the court’s conservative majority appeared to side with the

Trump administration, while the liberal minority questioned the

administration’s motives and methods. Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor

said, quote, “There’s no doubt that people will respond less. If you’re

talking about prediction, this is about 100 percent that people will

answer less.”

AMY GOODMAN:

Chief Justice John Roberts appeared to support the addition of the

citizenship question, saying it was, quote, “quite common” to add a

demographics questions to the census. He asked the plaintiffs in the

suit, “Do you think it wouldn’t help voting rights enforcement?”

Conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh said the United Nations recommends

countries ask a citizenship question on the census, listing a number of

countries that ask about citizenship, including Spain, Germany, Canada,

Australia, Ireland and Mexico. After the Supreme Court heard oral

arguments, New York state Attorney General Letitia James, who helped

bring the lawsuit, spoke outside the court.

ATTORNEY GENERAL LETITIA JAMES:

Adding that particular citizenship question could lead to the

undercounting in communities across America, particularly in immigrant

communities and Hispanic communities. It would mean that communities

entitled to resources wouldn’t get those resources. It would deny

certain communities of equal representation. And so, in the interest of

fairness, in the interest of upholding this quintessential American

promise, we are obligated to ensure the most accurate count in the 2020

census. And as such, we must use every tool at our disposal, in our

arsenal, to fight to protect its integrity. And that’s what we did

today.

</blockquote>

AMY GOODMAN: [We go now] to Los Angeles, where we’re joined by Thomas Saenz, president and general counsel of MALDEF, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund. MALDEF

is representing plaintiffs in one of the lawsuits challenging the

census citizenship question. And here in New York, we’re joined by Ari

Berman, senior writer at Mother Jones, reporting fellow at The Nation Institute, author of Give Us the Ballot: The Modern Struggle for Voting Rights in America.

So, Ari, you attended the Supreme Court oral arguments yesterday. Set

the scene for us. And were you surprised by the tenor of the questions?

ARI BERMAN:

I did. And this really is one of the most important cases for democracy

in decades, Amy, because the census determines so many things in our

society: how $880 billion in federal funding is allocated, how voting

districts are drawn, how many House seats, how many Electoral College

votes states have. There really is nothing we do that’s more important

in a democracy than the census. And this one question about U.S.

citizenship has the possibility to derail the entire census. One of the

most important and longest constitutional responsibilities that our

government has could now be derailed and turned into a political weapon

by the Trump administration to target immigrants and places where lots

of immigrants live.

And so, I was hoping I would hear these big-picture debates in the

Supreme Court about the importance of the census and how this question

threatens the census. Instead, the conservative justices on the court

seemed very sympathetic to this question. They really didn’t question

the motives of Wilbur Ross, the commerce secretary, who added this

question, even though three different federal courts have struck it

down. Six years ago, I was in the Supreme Court when they railed against

the Voting Rights Act, called it an act of regional discrimination

against the South. And then, suddenly, six years later, the same

conservative justices that gutted the Voting Rights Act suddenly believe

that this citizenship question is now necessary to enforce the Voting

Rights Act, which every voting rights lawyer will tell you it’s not. And

so, once again, we have a situation where the Supreme Court seems like

they are about to side with folks that want to gut voting rights, roll

back civil rights, target immigrant communities, as opposed to

protecting one of the most important constitutional responsibilities

that we have....
=
<a href="https://theconversation.com/want-to-fix-gerrymandering-then-the-supreme-court-needs-to-listen-to-mathematicians-114345">https://theconversation.com/want-to-fix-gerrymandering-then-the-supreme-court-needs-to-listen-to-mathematicians-114345</a>sue s<a href="https://www.facingsouth.org/2019/03/partisan-gerrymandering-cases-could-shape-future-southern-politics">https://www.facingsouth.org/2019/03/partisan-gerrymandering-cases-could-shape-future-southern-politics</a>The 2018 midterm elections <a href="https://www.vox.com/midterm-elections/2018/11/7/18049518/voter-turnout-2018-midterm-elections-results" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold;">resulted in a surge</a> in turnout for Democratic voters across the South, but the increase in Democratic participation didn't translate directly to an increase in Democratic power because of gerrymandering — the drawing of electoral district lines to benefit one party or racial group over others.But gerrymandering is facing an unprecedented challenge, with two landmark lawsuits over the practice now being considered by the U.S. Supreme Court.This week, the high court heard arguments in cases challenging the congressional maps drawn by Republicans in North Carolina and by Democrats in Maryland. The Brennan Center for Justice, a voting rights advocacy group, <a href="https://www.brennancenter.org/blog/supreme-court-takes-partisan-gerrymandering" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold;">calls</a> those states' maps "among this decade's starkest examples of extreme partisan gerrymanders."Federal judges had <a href="https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-court-racial-gerrymander-20170522-story.html" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold;">previously struck down</a> North Carolina's Republican-drawn congressional maps as unconstitutional racial gerrymanders that diluted the power of black voters by packing them into two congressional districts. But in redrawing the maps for the 2016 election, the Republican-controlled General Assembly engineered them to ensure that the GOP would control 10 of the state's 13 congressional seats.State Rep. David Lewis, who led the latest redistricting effort in North Carolina, <a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2019/03/26/gerrymandering-supreme-court-maps-1235466" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold;">said</a> he drew the maps that way only "because I do not believe it's possible to draw a map with 11 Republicans and two Democrats." The <a href="https://www.oyez.org/cases/2018/18-422" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold;">lawsuit</a>filed over those maps is titled Rucho v. Common Cause.Showing that the maps are functioning as intended, 48 percent of North Carolina voters chose a Democrat to represent them in the U.S. House in the 2018 election, but Republicans held on to their overwhelming advantage in the state's congressional delegation. The GOP currently controls eight of the state's 11 congressional seats, with elections set for later this year to fill vacancies in the state's 3rd District, where Republican Rep. Walter Jones recently died, and the 9th District, where the Republican win was thrown out amid charges of manipulated absentee ballots.The Supreme Court also heard arguments this week in Lamone v. Benisek, a <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-hears-arguments-on-partisan-redistricting-case/" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">case</a> out of Maryland that accuses Democratic lawmakers of unconstitutional partisan gerrymandering. Democrats who controlled the state's redistricting in 2011 increased their 6-2 hold on congressional seats to 7-1 and helped unseat a 20-year Republican incumbent by adding thousands of Democratic voters to Maryland's 6th District.During oral arguments in the cases, the Supreme Court justices appeared to be divided on partisan redistricting. The conservative majority did not dispute that extreme partisan gerrymandering is a problem but questioned whether judicial intervention by the Supreme Court is the solution."Have we really reached the moment, even though it would be a big lift for this court to get involved, where the other actors can't do it?" <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/26/us/politics/gerrymandering-supreme-court.html" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold;">asked</a> Justice Brett Kavanaugh, referencing the states.The liberal justices seemed more responsive to the argument that extreme partisan gerrymandering undermines the basic principle of one person, one vote. "Does one person have one vote that counts equally with others if the impact of her vote is reduced based on her party affiliation?" <a href="https://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/article228399289.html" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold;">asked</a> Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.This isn't the first time a partisan gerrymandering case has landed at the U.S. Supreme Court. Last year the court had a chance to rule on a <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2018/06/19/the-supreme-court-decided-not-to-decide-wisconsins-gerrymandering-case-but-heres-why-it-will-be-back/?utm_term=.b55486ce9dae" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold;">partisan redistricting case</a> out of Wisconsin, but it opted out of making a decision and instead sent the case back to a lower court. With the North Carolina and Maryland cases, the justices have another chance to establish a standard for determining unconstitutional partisan gerrymandering.Allison Riggs with the Southern Coalition for Social Justice in Durham argued the North Carolina case before the Supreme Court. If the justices fail to act, she <a href="https://www.wral.com/supreme-court-justices-grapple-with-nc-partisan-gerrymandering-case/18284060/" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold;">said</a>, they would back up the legislature's belief that the court would "implicitly endorse unfettered partisan manipulation in redistricting by declining to rein in this most egregious example.The court is scheduled to announce its decision in both cases by the end of June.<h2 style="background: none rgb(255, 255, 255); font-weight: normal; margin: 1em 0px 0.25em; overflow: hidden; padding: 0px; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(162, 169, 177); font-family: " linux="Linux" libertine="Libertine" georgia="Georgia" times="Times" serif="serif" line-height="line-height">Controversy
</h2>Schuette was working to strike down a ballot initiative to eliminate partisan gerrymandering, which has gained enough signatures to be on the Michigan ballot in the November 2018 election.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Schuette#cite_note-nytimes.com-42" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">[42]</a> The issue went on to the state supreme court, where "Five of the seven justices were nominated or appointed by Republicans, and two of those have received financial backing from the Michigan Chamber of Commerce, which also happens to be one of the main funders of the opposition campaign. Both justices have refused to recuse themselves from the case."<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Schuette#cite_note-nytimes.com-42" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">[42]</a> The court upheld the inclusion of the initiative on the ballot which was approved by voters.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Schuette#cite_note-43" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">[43]</a>off bs omgGov. Scott Waker Named National Finance Chairman for the National Republican Redistricting TrustMarch 21, 2019
Alexandria, VA – The National Republican Redistricting Trust (NRRT) announced today that former Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker will serve as the group’s National Finance Chairman. In this position, Governor Walker will help lead the effort to raise the resources needed as the NRRT prepares for the next round of redistricting in 2021.
The NRRT was formed in 2017 and serves as the central resource to coordinate and collaborate with Republicans on a 50-state redistricting effort, focusing on the party’s legal and data needs ahead of the 2020 redistricting process.
Adam Kincaid, Executive Director of the NRRT, said, “Governor Walker will be a tremendous asset to the NRRT as we prepare for the next round of redistricting. There is no legal strategy the Democrats won’t try in order to litigate their way into power.  To fight back we need Republicans like Governor Walker who believe in the future of our country and our party. When Democrats don’t win at the ballot box they are determined to sue until it’s blue.  Governor Walker’s support and work on behalf of the NRRT will help us fight back against the Democrats’ nationwide judicial power grab.”
Governor Walker said, “Republican reforms work.  We need to make sure Republican candidates have a chance to make that case to voters across the country. To do that, we need fair legislative districts. I am honored to help lead the NRRT as we fight for fair maps in the next round of redistricting. The far left is highly organized and well-funded.  Barack Obama and Eric Holder want to gerrymander Democrats into permanent control, so we are working to ensure that our side has the organization and resources to combat their efforts. Our reforms work, and if we have a fair chance to make our case, we win.”  
The purpose of the NRRT is to fight for fair, constitutional redistricting for all Americans. For more information about the NRRT, click here.
Share this:Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)Click to share on Google+ (Opens in new window)RelatedScott Walker joins GOP redistricting group as finance chairMarch 21, 2019In "Eric Holder"National Republican Redistricting Trust Names Mary Ellis Finnerty as Finance DirectorFebruary 5, 2019In "Mary Ellis Finnerty"NRRT On Ohio Redistricting Lawsuit: Democrats' Strategy is to Sue Until It's BlueMarch 4, 2019In "Ohio"=<div>
</div><div><a rel="nofollow" target="blank" href="https://rawstory.us2.list-manage.com/track/click?u=80b42ecc21f29763320aceb90&id=d4730e7c63&e=4da1f92934" style="">Mark Meadows and the gerrymandered district: How Republicans ‘cracked’ the liberal city of Asheville — and elected a right-wing buffoon</a>Republicans "cracked" the liberal city of Asheville into two safe…</div>In a major victory for voting rights, a federal court has once again struck down North Carolina’s gerrymandered congressional district voting map, saying it was unfairly drawn to help Republican candidates. In 2016, Republicans won 77 percent of the state’s House districts despite receiving just 53 percent of the statewide vote. A redrawn map could put more seats into play for Democrats in November, but the case may first go back to the Supreme Court.3 recent scotus, not all good?slate:
Clarence Thomas Joins Liberals, Shocks WorldA strange Supreme Court alliance just struck a blow against racial gerrymandering in the United States.By Mark Joseph SternSupreme Court Justice Clarence ThomasSupreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas speaks at the memorial service for his former colleague Antonin Scalia on March 1, 2016, in Washington, D.C.
On Monday, the Supreme Court issued a landmark decision holding that two congressional districts in North Carolina were racially gerrymandered in violation of the Constitution. The broad ruling will likely have ripple effects on litigation across the country, helping plaintiffs establish that state legislatures unlawfully injected race into redistricting. And, in a welcome change, the decision did not split along familiar ideological lines: Justice Clarence Thomas joined the four liberal justices to create a majority, following his race-blind principles of equal protection to an unusually progressive resultMARK JOSEPH STERNMark Joseph Stern covers courts and the law for Slate.http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2017/05/in_cooper_v_harris_the_supreme_court_strikes_a_blow_against_racial_redistricting.htmlCooper v. Harris, Monday’s case, involves North Carolina’s two most infamous congressional districts, District 1 and District 12. In the 1990s, the Democratic-controlled state legislature gerrymandered both districts into bizarre shapes that appeared to be drawn along racial lines. A group of Republican voters sued, arguing that the state had used race to shape the districts in violation of the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. North Carolina acknowledged that it had used race in redistricting, but argued that it did so for a constitutionally permissible reason: It wanted to comply with the Voting Rights Act, which bars states from diluting minority votes and, at the time, required the creation of majority-minority districts in historically racist states. To ensure compliance with the VRA, North Carolina asserted, it had drawn both districts to be majority black.Clarence Thomas’ consistency handed Democrats—and the principle of equality—a remarkable victory.
In 1996’s Shaw v. Hunt, the Supreme Court ruled by a 5–4 vote that these districts violated equal protection. In this case, the conservatives formed the majority, while the liberal justices would have affirmed the constitutionality of the racially gerrymandered districts. At the time, progressives viewed Shaw and its predecessors as an assault on the VRA—a Republican effort to prevent states from helping black voters choose their own representatives. The liberal justices, on the other hand, saw many racial gerrymanders as a kind of affirmative-action program. They insisted that North Carolina’s districts were merely “designed to accommodate the political concerns of a historically disadvantaged minority.”
There was some truth to this idea, but also a great deal of naïveté. The majority-black districts that progressives defended were frequently drawn with the help of Republicans, who appreciated the clustering of Democratic voters around a few safe seats. By packing black Democrats into a handful of districts, Republicans made their own seats safer. Had the Supreme Court’s conservatives held fast on Shaw, these majority-black districts might have been invalidated. But in 2001’s Easley v. Cromartie, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor unexpectedly flipped, siding with the liberals to ease restrictions on racial gerrymandering. Easley cemented the notion that states may gerrymander along partisan lines, even where race and political affiliation are intertwined. Since then, plaintiffs have struggled to prove that gerrymanders used race as a “predominant factor” (illegal) rather than party registration (legal).Wisc<a href="https://www.exposedbycmd.org/2018/06/18/us-supreme-court-decision-roadmap-ruling-partisan-gerrymandering-case">https://www.exposedbycmd.org/2018/06/18/us-supreme-court-decision-roadmap-ruling-partisan-gerrymandering-case</a>A unanimous U.S. Supreme Court handed down a decision in Gil vs. Whitford, a case challenging the extreme partisan gerrymandering of Wisconsin voting districts by the GOP legislature. The Court remanded the technical issue of “standing” back to the same three-judge panel that had ruled Wisconsin legislative districts unconstitutional. The Court did not rule on the merits, leaving the door open for a ruling that may still rein in computer-aided, hyper-partisan gerrymandering. Read the ruling <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-1161_dc8f.pdf" target="blank" rel="noopener" style="box-sizing: inherit; background: 0px 0px; transition: all 500ms ease-in-out; text-decoration-line: none;">here.</a>The ruling was described as a “punt” by some observers, but the lawyer representing disenfranchised Wisconsin voters is hopeful that the issue can be remedied and sent back to the court for a ruling on the merits. Advocates are hoping that Justice Anthony Kennedy, who has expressed concern about this type of gerrymandering may pave the way for a positive outcome.Citing Kennedy, Justice Elena Kagan wrote in her concurrence that “partisan gerrymandering, as this Court has recognized, is ‘incompatible with democratic principles’… the practice enables politicians to entrench themselves in power against the people’s will.”Paul Smith of the Campaign Legal Center argued the case before the Court on October 3, 2017. He explained today’s ruling at a press conference.“The Court issued a unanimous decision saying that the plaintiffs did not yet prove they had standing to persue the gerrymandering claim… saying essentially that our theory of statewide vote dilution does not work under a standing law that does not produce a sufficiently ‘concrete and particularized’ injury for each of the plaintiffs,” said Smith. The Court said “you have to look at the issue on a district by district basis.”The constitutional requirement of “standing” limits participation in lawsuits to those directly impacted. To have standing, a party must show an “injury in fact” to their own legal interests. The court effectively ruled that the lead plaintiff, William Whitford, lacked standing because he was not sufficiently harmed. Whitford, who lives in a Democratic district in Madison, was asserting a statewide harm, but the court said “[t]o the extent that the plaintiffs’ alleged harm is the dilution of their votes, that injury is district specific.”According to Smith, “the basic bottom line is there will be plaintiffs with clear standing, there will probably be more added, and when we get back to the district court we should be in the position to win very substantial relief.”<h2 style="box-sizing: inherit; line-height: 1.2; margin: 0px 0px 10px; text-transform: uppercase; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">WHITFORD: “WE HAVE A ROADMAP”</h2>Whitford, a Professor of Law Emeritus at the University of Wisconsin who envisioned the case along with redistricting expert Wisconsin Rep. Fred Kessler, said he was both encouraged and discouraged by today’s decision.“I am encouraged because here is no reason to think we can’t present the evidence about plaintiffs that the court seems to want… [A] number of the plaintiffs already can meet that burden,” he said.But Whitford was discouraged by the long delay. “This case was filed in 2015. We have had two elections under what I think is a clearly unconstitutional apportionment already, that give the Democrats no chance of getting the majority, and have many negative consequences in terms of policy. I don’t know how long it is going to go on, but we need to keep in mind that it is important to have a new legislative districting before the 2020 elections. Those are very important elections because that legislature will participate in the redistricting after the new decennial census.”...<div></div><div><a href="https://www.alternet.org/election-03918/supreme-court-decides-let-political-extremists-run-wild-key-election-case">https://www.alternet.org/election-03918/supreme-court-decides-let-political-extremists-run-wild-key-election-case</a></div><div>
</div><div> U.S. Supreme Court on Monday all-but dismissed one of the most-watched election law cases in recent years, saying those in Wisconsin filing a lawsuit that sought to show how extreme partisan gerrymandering was anti-democratic had no basis to sue.It also took no action on a second partisan gerrymandering case from <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/17-333_b97c.pdf" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Maryland</a>.“The Court has not found that this presents an individual and personal injury of the kind required for Article III standing,” the <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-1161_dc8f.pdf" style="text-decoration-line: none;">majority said</a> in the Wisconsin case, sending it back to a lower court. “A citizen’s interest in the overall composition of the legislature is embodied in his right to vote for his representative. The harm asserted by the plaintiffs in this case is best understood as arising from a burden on their own votes.”<div id="mc_embed_signup" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); clear: left; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal;">The Wisconsin case sought to show how the state’s GOP-led legislature in 2011 segregated each party’s reliable voters by party to draw legislative districts after the 2010 Census to create a red super-majority. In the Maryland case, those suing said a Democratic-led legislature had overreached to erase a GOP-held House seat.The Wisconsin suit was the most carefully watched of the two gerrymandering cases, because it involved statewide jockeying of political districts, as opposed to a single congressional seat. It was also the platform for advanced analysis that showed how the use of technology was able to tilt the electoral playing field to game political advantage based on voter turnout patterns. The decision will reverberate on many political and cultural levels. Seen from a partisan standpoint, the Court is saying that the plaintiffs’ efforts to demonstrate that Wisconsin’s Republican mapmakers were able create a structural head start in the likely popular vote was fair game—even if it led to one-party rule for most of this decade. Beyond the technicalities of how the GOP nullified their opposition’s ability to win in typical election cycles (2018 is not a typical year), the Court’s majority is saying that rebalancing elections to create greater equality among voters is not a constitutional priority.Going deeper, the Court’s action is likely to signal that ruling parties in supermajority state legislatures are free to tinker with the rules of voting and elections as they see fit—to preserve their power. (Wisconsin was one of more than a dozen red states that drew extreme gerrymandered maps after the 2010 census, leading to super majorities in their state legislatures and House delegations. Those ultra-red majorities then passed many of this decade’s voter suppression, anti-union, anti-abortion, anti-LGBT and anti-safety net laws.On a cultural level, the Court is signaling that American democracy will remain a deeply uneven system, where governing classes can advantage themselves and take steps to undermine the participation and power of their opponents or under-represented constituencies.While there is a tendency among the judiciary to keep a certain distance from the political process—as a co-equal branch of government and separation of powers—the fact remains that the Court is not seeking to rebalance the most glaring anti-democratic features in the fundamentals that shape the electoral process.Inequality in elections is going to remain a formidable obstacle. Only last week, in purple North Carolina, did the Republican-led legislature propose a<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/15/us/north-carolina-voting-rights.html" style="text-decoration-line: none;">new series of election rules</a> that would disadvantage a key Democratic voting block—African Americans who voted on the weekend before the Tuesday general election. The state’s GOP proposed, among several measures, to eliminate the early voting option used by 200,000 citizens in 2016.That move came despite a federal appeals court in 2016 rejecting an earlier slate of anti-participatory election reforms, saying those measures targeted the state’s black voters “with almost surgical precision.” But now, with the Supreme Court not acting on the partisan gerrymandering cases, the political process will be freer to revert to more aggressive tactics to advantage one side—where partisan power apparently carries more constitutional weight than equality among the electorate.  </div><div></div>
<div class="story-meta__two">

            <div id="storybyline" class="storybyline-wrap linkLocation">
                  <div class="bucketwrap byline" id="res607317736">
                        <div class="byline-container--block"><div class="byline byline--block byline--has-link"><p class="byline__name byline__name--block">
    <font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><a href="https://www.npr.org/people/137765146/shankar-vedantam" rel="author" data-metrics="{" action="action" click="Click" byline="Byline" category="category" story="Story" metadata="Metadata">
      Shankar Vedantam
    </a>

</div>

            </div>
         </div>

      </div>

</div>

      <p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The researchers believe this is because politicians in

gerrymandered districts are less likely to advocate for goods on behalf

of their constituents.

</div>5/1<a href="https://www.npr.org/2018/05/01/607303602/in-gerrymandered-districts-constituents-likely-to-lose-economic-security">https://www.npr.org/2018/05/01/607303602/in-gerrymandered-districts-constituents-likely-to-lose-economic-security</a>

<a href="https://www.alternet.org/election-03918/democrats-target-2018-races-12-states-prevent-another-decade-republican-gerrymanders">https://www.alternet.org/election-03918/democrats-target-2018-races-12-states-prevent-another-decade-republican-gerrymanders</a>Forget, for a minute, which party controls the House after November’s elections. There’s another decision that will be made this fall that will determine if Republicans will likely dominate the 2020s as they have this decade, in Congress and state capitals.
That fateful decision concerns whether the GOP will monopolize the process for revising political maps that will hold for a decade of congressional and state legislative elections starting in 2022. Ten years ago, after being trounced by President Obama and seeing Democrats take full control of Congress, Republicans plotted a comeback by targeting this same process in <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748703862704575099670689398044" style="text-decoration-line: none;">16 states</a>. They wanted to monopolize redistricting and they did, producing gerrymanders that diluted Democrats’ power.

On Wednesday, the National Democratic Redistricting Committee revealed its <a href="https://democraticredistricting.com/2018-targets/" style="text-decoration-line: none;">2018 strategy</a>. The NDRC is targeting 12 states it believes hold the key to preventing another decade of runaway Republican rule. Their strategy is not to turn the tables on the GOP—they can’t; they’re too far behind. Rather, Democrats hope to elect a slate of governors wielding veto pens and to retake enough state legislative chambers to force Republicans to negotiate sharing power. 

“During the last redistricting process in 2011, Republicans had trifecta control [the governor and both legislative chambers] in 19 states, which gave them complete power over the drawing of 213 congressional districts,” <a href="https://democraticredistricting.com/2018-targets/" style="text-decoration-line: none;">the committee said</a>. “The NDRC is committed to changing that and making sure Democrats have a seat at the table in the 2021 redistricting process.”

“This is a critical election year for redistricting because it is the first cycle where the officials elected will serve during the redistricting process in 2021,” the <a href="https://revealed:%20https//democraticredistricting.com/2018-targets/" style="text-decoration-line: none;">NDRC continued</a>. “NDRC is targeting 12 states during the 2018 election cycle, including 9 gubernatorial races, 20 legislative chambers, 2 ballot initiatives, and 2 down-ballot races. There are 8 additional states on our Watch List.”

While Americans keep hearing that the House will be up for grabs as 2018 is turning into a blue wave year, these statewide races—especially for governor where there are open seats due to term limits—are arguably more important if one doesn’t want to live under outsized GOP rule for another dozen years.

“People need to keep in mind that the GOP has key structural advantages,” said David Daley, author of <a href="https://smile.amazon.com/Ratf-ked-Behind-Americas-Democracy/dp/1631491628/?tag=alternorg08-20" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Ratfked: The True Story Behind the Secret Plan to Steal America’s Democracy</a>, which documents the GOP’s gerrymander of 2011. “Turnout [next fall] matters. Democrats need to run everywhere, while prioritizing ruthlessly: if they miss these targets in 2018, they will not have another shot at the maps in many of these states until 2031.”

“They also need to understand taking back the House and having a seat at the table in redistricting are two different things,” he continued. “The first could happen. But the second is arguably more important — and that’s a harder, longer fight that needs to be measured in flipping state legislative chambers in key states, and winning seats at the table in 2021.”

Indeed, getting that negotiating power is the goal, NDRC founder, former Attorney General Eric Holder, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/06/us/politics/democrats-gerrymandering-election-maps.html" style="text-decoration-line: none;">told</a> the New York Times. “From my perspective, success is if you break a trifecta… I don’t think that in December of 2018, you measure success by whether you have assumed control of a particular state.”

NDRC’s 2018 Targets To break up red-state monopolies, NDRC is <a href="https://democraticredistricting.com/2018-targets/" style="text-decoration-line: none;">targeting</a> open governors’ seats in Ohio, Michigan, Georgia, Florida, Colorado, Nevada and Maine. The NDRC also wants to keep Democratic governors in office in Minnesota and Pennsylvania, just as it wants to challenge GOP governors and legislators in Wisconsin and New Hampshire.

In some states, like Ohio, the NDRC will also be <a href="https://democraticredistricting.com/2018-targets/" style="text-decoration-line: none;">targeting</a> the secretary of state and auditor races, as those officials sit at the table shaping political maps. In other states, like Nevada, it wants to break the GOP’s legislative monopoly. It is also targeting ballot initiatives in Michigan, Ohio, Nevada, Utah, Arizona and South Dakota.   

These priorities make sense, Daley said....
<a href="https://www.alternet.org/election-03918/supreme-court-rejects-effort-keep-pennsylvania-gop-gerrymander">https://www.alternet.org/election-03918/supreme-court-rejects-effort-keep-pennsylvania-gop-gerrymander</a>=<a href="https://www.democracynow.org/2018/1/23/headlines/court_rules_pennsylvanias_congressional_map_is_unconstitutional">https://www.democracynow.org/2018/1/23/headlines/court_rules_pennsylvanias_congressional_map_is_unconstitutional</a><div></div><div><a href="https://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/supreme-court-just-blocked-order-north-carolina-redraw-gerrymandered-congressional">https://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/supreme-court-just-blocked-order-north-carolina-redraw-gerrymandered-congressional</a></div><div>
</div><div>North Carolinians may vote in the 2018 midterm elections under a congressional map that has been gerrymandered by Republicans. The U.S. Supreme Court has blocked a lower court ruling ordering the U.S. House of Representatives district lines be redrawn by January 24.</div>Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor both objected to the order.Reuters <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-election/supreme-court-blocks-redrawing-of-north-carolina-congressional-maps-idUSKBN1F73C1" style="text-decoration-line: none;">explains the initial ruling</a> that ordered the district lines be redrawn:<blockquote style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">"The three-judge panel ruled that the Republican-drawn districts violated the U.S. Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection under the law by intentionally hobbling the electoral strength of non-Republican voters. Two of the three judges also said the plan ran afoul of the Constitution’s First Amendment by discriminating based on political belief and association."</blockquote>The Supreme Court is reviewing cases of alleged gerrymandering in Wisconsin and Maryland. The implications of these cases on other states, including North Carolina, remain to be seen....<div></div><div>=<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/09/us/north-carolina-gerrymander.html">https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/09/us/north-carolina-gerrymander.html</a>
A  panel of federal judges struck down North Carolina’s congressional map on Tuesday, condemning it as unconstitutional because Republicans had drawn the map seeking a political advantage. The ruling was the first time that a federal court had blocked a congressional map because of a partisan gerrymander, and it instantly endangered Republican seats in the coming elections.
Judge James A. Wynn Jr., in a biting 191-page opinion, said that Republicans in North Carolina’s Legislature had been “motivated by invidious partisan intent” as they carried out their obligation in 2016 to divide the state into 13 congressional districts, 10 of which are held by Republicans. The result, Judge Wynn wrote, violated the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection.
The ruling and its chief demand — that the Republican-dominated Legislature create a new landscape of congressional districts by Jan. 24 — infused new turmoil into the political chaos that has in recent years enveloped North Carolina. President Trump carried North Carolina in 2016, but the state elected a Democrat as its governor on the same day and in 2008 supported President Barack Obama.
The unusually blunt decision by the panel could lend momentum to two other challenges on gerrymandering that are already before the Supreme Court — and that the North Carolina case could join if Republicans make good on their vow to appeal Tuesday’s ruling.
Continue reading the main storyRELATED COVERAGE
Justices Reject 2 Gerrymandered North Carolina Districts, Citing Racial Bias MAY 22, 2017
Pennsylvania Lawsuit Says House Redistricting Is Partisan Gerrymander JUNE 15, 2017
In October, the court heard an appeal of another three-judge panel’s ruling that Republicans had unconstitutionally gerrymandered Wisconsin’s State Assembly in an attempt to relegate Democrats to a permanent minority. In the second case, the justices will hear arguments by Maryland Republicans that the Democratic-controlled Legislature redrew House districts to flip a Republican-held seat to Democratic control.
The Supreme Court has struggled without success for decades to develop a legal standard for determining when a partisan gerrymander crosses constitutional lines. The court once came close to ruling that such cases were political matters beyond its jurisdiction. But the rise of extreme partisan gerrymanders in the last decade, powered by a growing ideological divide and powerful map-drawing software, has brought the question back to the justices with new urgency. A Supreme Court ruling outlawing at least some such gerrymanders could reshape the political landscape.
Fights over voting rights and election procedures have often taken center stage in Raleigh, North Carolina’s capital, and Tuesday’s ruling noted that “partisan advantage” had been a criterion lawmakers used when mulling how to map the state.
Republican officials in the General Assembly said Tuesday evening that they intended to appeal the ruling, which many elected officials and political strategists were still scrambling to digest. Dallas Woodhouse, the executive director of the North Carolina Republican Party, criticized Judge Wynn and accused him of “waging a personal, partisan war on North Carolina Republicans.”
In a separate post on Twitter, Mr. Woodhouse argued that Judge Wynn had concluded that North Carolina’s Republicans “should not be allowed to draw election districts under any circumstances under any set of rules,” an effort he called “a hostile takeover” of the General Assembly and legislatures nationwide. Republicans could ask the Supreme Court to stay the decision and allow the disputed map to be used this year.
But critics of the congressional map welcomed a decision that was notable for its tartness and urgency.
“Clearly, the courts have realized that they do need to step in and police extreme partisan gerrymanders, and the court recognized that North Carolina’s gerrymander was one of the most extreme in history,” said Ruth Greenwood, senior legal counsel at the Campaign Legal Center and a lawyer representing some of the map’s challengers.
The chairman of the North Carolina Democratic Party, Wayne Goodwin, said the decision was “a major victory for North Carolina and people across the state whose voices were silenced by Republicans’ unconstitutional attempts to rig the system to their partisan advantage.”
The judges issued their decision fewer than 24 hours before the General Assembly was to convene in Raleigh for a special session. The ruling unmistakably placed lawmakers on the clock, giving them two weeks to present a “remedial plan” and declaring that the court would institute its own map if it finds the new district lines unsatisfactory.
“Politically, this gives hope to Democrats,” said J. Michael Bitzer, a professor of political science at Catawba College, which is near Charlotte. “I can imagine the Republicans being furious, but they have to see political reality, and it’s not just in the next two weeks: It’s come November.”
Professor Bitzer, though, cautioned that the ultimate political fallout would not become clearer until the courts settled what could be a cascade of appeals and injunctions.
The ruling left little doubt about how the judges assessed the Legislature’s most recent map. Judge Wynn, who sits on the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit and was a member of a special panel considering the congressional map, said that “a wealth of evidence proves the General Assembly’s intent to ‘subordinate’ the interests of non-Republican voters and ‘entrench’ Republican domination of the state’s congressional delegation.”
Most federal lawsuits are first heard by a district court, and later — if needed — by an appeals court and the Supreme Court. But under federal law, constitutional challenges to the apportionment of House districts or statewide legislative bodies are automatically heard by three-judge panels, and appeals are taken directly to the Supreme Court.
In addition to Judge Wynn, an appointee of Mr. Obama’s, Senior Judge W. Earl Britt of the Federal District Court in Raleigh joined the opinion. Judge Britt was appointed by President Jimmy Carter.
Judge William L. Osteen Jr., who was appointed by President George W. Bush and sits on the federal bench in Greensboro, said he agreed that the existing map violated the 14th Amendment, but he disputed other parts of Judge Wynn’s opinion, including the decision to appoint an independent expert to begin preparing an alternative map.</div>=<a href="https://www.alternet.org/election-03918/study-finds-democrats-wont-take-back-house-2018-giant-wave">https://www.alternet.org/election-03918/study-finds-democrats-wont-take-back-house-2018-giant-wave</a><div style="font-family: " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large"></div><div style="font-family: " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large"><a href="https://democracynow.org/2016/11/23/headlines/wisconsin_court_rules_state_illegally_gerrymandered_districts_to_favor_gop">https://democracynow.org/2016/11/23/headlines/wisconsin_court_rules_state_illegally_gerrymandered_districts_to_favor_gop</a></div><div style="font-family: " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large">
</div><div style="font-family: " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large"><div>
</div><div>In Wisconsin, a court has ruled the state Legislature engaged in unconstitutional gerrymandering to favor the Republican Party when it redrew the State Assembly districts in 2011. The case is likely to go to the Supreme Court.</div></div><div style="font-family: " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large"></div>see CA Chs munger jr 3x propostions?gilliard and hiltachk<a href="https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_20,Congressional_Redistricting(2010)">https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_20,Congressional_Redistricting(2010)</a><h3 style="margin: 0px 0px 0.3em; padding-top: 0.5em; padding-bottom: 0.17em; border-bottom: none; width: auto; line-height: 21px; background: none rgb(255, 255, 255);">Supporters</h3><a href="https://ballotpedia.org/Charles_Munger" title="Charles Munger" class="mw-redirect" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Charles Munger</a> launched the campaign to qualify the Congressional Redistricting Initiative for the 2010 ballot. Munger was also a key supporter of 2008's <a href="https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_11(2008)" title="California Proposition 11 (2008)" class="mw-redirect" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Proposition 11</a>, having given about $2 million to that effort.<a href="https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_20,Congressional_Redistricting(2010)#cite_note-5" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">[5]</a>The New York Times characterizes Proposition 20's supporters as "an unlikely collection of election-reform groups, civil rights nonprofits and former officials from both major parties who say that the current system of redistricting has left politicians unaccountable."<a href="https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_20,Congressional_Redistricting(2010)#cite_note-6" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">[6]</a>Supporters of Proposition 20 include:<ul style="line-height: 21px; list-style-type: square; margin: 0.3em 0px 0px 1.6em; padding: 0px; list-style-image: url(" images="images" bullet-icon.png="bullet-icon.png" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb"><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://ballotpedia.org/California_Chamber_of_Commerce" title="California Chamber of Commerce" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">California Chamber of Commerce</a></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;">California <a href="https://ballotpedia.org/California_NAACP" title="California NAACP" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">State Conference of the NAACP</a></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://ballotpedia.org/AARP" title="AARP" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">AARP</a></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://ballotpedia.org/California_Common_Cause" title="California Common Cause" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">California Common Cause</a></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://ballotpedia.org/Bay_Area_Council" title="Bay Area Council" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Bay Area Council</a></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://ballotpedia.org/Arnold_Schwarzenegger" title="Arnold Schwarzenegger" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Arnold Schwarzenegger</a> and <a href="https://ballotpedia.org/Gray_Davis" title="Gray Davis" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Gray Davis</a></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a target="blank" class="external text" href="http://www.yes20no27.org/who.html" style="text-decoration: none; padding-right: 13px; background: url(" images="images" external-link-ltr-icon.png="external-link-ltr-icon.png" right="right" center="center" no-repeat="no-repeat">Full list of supporters of Proposition 20 from the "Yes on Proposition 20" website</a> (<a href="https://ballotpedia.org/Dead_link" title="Dead link" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">dead link</a>)</li></ul><h3 style="margin: 0px 0px 0.3em; padding-top: 0.5em; padding-bottom: 0.17em; border-bottom: none; width: auto; line-height: 21px; background: none rgb(255, 255, 255);">Arguments in favor</h3>Arguments were submitted to the official <a href="https://ballotpedia.org/California_Voter_Guide(official)" title="California Voter Guide (official)" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">California Voter Guide</a> on behalf of a "yes" vote on Proposition 20, as were rebuttals to the arguments provided by Prop 20 opponents. The signers of these arguments were:<div style="line-height: 21px; float: right; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><ul style="line-height: 21px; list-style-type: square; margin: 0.3em 0px 0px 1.6em; padding: 0px; list-style-image: url(" images="images" bullet-icon.png="bullet-icon.png"><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;">David Pacheco, the California President of <a href="https://ballotpedia.org/AARP" title="AARP" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: none; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">AARP</a></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;">Kathay Feng, the executive director of <a href="https://ballotpedia.org/California_Common_Cause" title="California Common Cause" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: none; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">California Common Cause</a></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">John Kabateck, the executive director of the California chapter of the <a href="https://ballotpedia.org/National_Federal_of_Independent_Business" title="National Federal of Independent Business" class="mw-redirect" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">National Federal of Independent Business</a></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Alice Huffman, President, the <a href="https://ballotpedia.org/California_NAACP" title="California NAACP" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">California chapter of the NAACP</a></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;">Julian Canete, the executive director of the <a href="https://ballotpedia.org/California_Hispanic_Chambers_of_Commerce" title="California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce" style="text-decoration: none; background: none rgb(255, 255, 102);">California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce</a></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Richard Rider, chairman of the <a href="https://ballotpedia.org/San_Diego_Tax_Fighters" title="San Diego Tax Fighters" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">San Diego Tax Fighters</a></li></ul>The arguments made on behalf of Proposition 20 focus on these themes:<ul style="line-height: 21px; list-style-type: square; margin: 0.3em 0px 0px 1.6em; padding: 0px; list-style-image: url(" images="images" bullet-icon.png="bullet-icon.png" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb"><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;">Proposition 20 will create fair U.S. congressional districts, which will in turn make California's representatives to the <a href="https://ballotpedia.org/U.S.Congress" title="U.S. Congress" class="mw-redirect" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">U.S. Congress</a> more accountable and responsive, as well as making it easier to vote them out of office.<a href="https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_20,Congressional_Redistricting(2010)#cite_note-ovg-7" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">[7]</a></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;">Proposition 20 ends the current system of members of the <a href="https://ballotpedia.org/California_State_Legislature" title="California State Legislature" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">California State Legislature</a> being in a position to draw the U.S. Congressional district boundaries "for their friends in Congress—districts that virtually guarantee Members of Congress get re-elected even when they don’t listen to voters." Also, "Right now, legislators and their paid consultants draw districts behind closed doors to guarantee their friends in Congress are re-elected. Sacramento politicians pick the voters for their friends in Congress, rather than voters choosing who will represent them."<a href="https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_20,Congressional_Redistricting(2010)#cite_note-ovg-7" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">[7]</a></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;">Proposition 20 is a simple and intuitive extension of a ballot initiative that California voters already approved, <a href="https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_11(2008)" title="California Proposition 11 (2008)" class="mw-redirect" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">California Proposition 11 (2008)</a>.<a href="https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_20,Congressional_Redistricting(2010)#cite_note-ovg-7" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">[7]</a></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;">Under the current system, politicians have used their redistricting powers to bring about unfair results, and Proposition 20 will put an end to that. For example, "In the last redistricting, Latino leaders sued after a California Congressman had 170,000 Latinos carved out of his district just to ensure he’d get re-elected. Now he’s leading the charge against 20!"<a href="https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_20,Congressional_Redistricting(2010)#cite_note-ovg-7" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">[7]</a></li></ul><h3 style="margin: 0px 0px 0.3em; padding-top: 0.5em; padding-bottom: 0.17em; border-bottom: none; width: auto; line-height: 21px; background: none rgb(255, 255, 255);">Donors</h3><dl style="margin-top: 0.2em; margin-bottom: 0.5em; line-height: 21px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><dd style="line-height: 1.5em; margin-left: 1.6em; margin-bottom: 0.1em; margin-right: 0px;"><dl style="margin-top: 0.2em; margin-bottom: 0.5em;"><dd style="line-height: 1.5em; margin-left: 1.6em; margin-bottom: 0.1em; margin-right: 0px;">Main article: <a href="https://ballotpedia.org/Donations_to_California%27s_2010_ballot_propositions#All_campaign_committees" title="Donations to California's 2010 ballot propositions" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Donations to California's 2010 ballot propositions</a></dd></dl></dd></dl>The "Yes on 20" campaign raised about $13.4 million. Donors of $50,000 and over to the "Yes on Proposition 20/No on Proposition 27" campaign committee were:<table class="wikitable" style="margin: 1em 1em 1em 0px; border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); border-collapse: collapse; line-height: 21px; width: 380px; background: rgb(249, 249, 249);" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="5" border="1"><tbody><tr><th style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0.2em 0.4em; text-align: center; background: rgb(0, 0, 139);">Donor</th><th style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0.2em 0.4em; text-align: center; background: rgb(0, 0, 139);">Amount</th></tr><tr><td style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0.2em 0.4em;"><a href="https://ballotpedia.org/Charles_Munger" title="Charles Munger" class="mw-redirect" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Charles Munger</a></td><td style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0.2em 0.4em;" align="right">$12,157,441</td></tr><tr><td style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0.2em 0.4em;">Charlotte Lowell</td><td style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0.2em 0.4em;" align="right">$956,000</td></tr><tr><td style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0.2em 0.4em;"><a href="https://ballotpedia.org/Eli_Broad" title="Eli Broad" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Eli Broad</a></td><td style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0.2em 0.4em;" align="right">$100,000</td></tr><tr><td style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0.2em 0.4em;">Diane Wilsey</td><td style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0.2em 0.4em;" align="right">$100,000</td></tr><tr><td style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0.2em 0.4em;"><a href="https://ballotpedia.org/California_Chamber_of_Commerce" title="California Chamber of Commerce" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: none; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">California Chamber of Commerce</a></td><td style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0.2em 0.4em;" align="right">$85,000</td></tr><tr><td style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0.2em 0.4em;">Susan Groff</td><td style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0.2em 0.4em;" align="right">$50,000</td></tr><tr><td style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0.2em 0.4em;"><a href="https://ballotpedia.org/Rebecca_Q.Morgan" title="Rebecca Q. Morgan" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Rebecca Q. Morgan</a></td><td style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0.2em 0.4em;" align="right">$50,000</td></tr></tbody></table>Note: Charlotte Lowell and Charles Munger are married to each other.<a href="https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_20,Congressional_Redistricting(2010)#cite_note-8" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">[8]</a><h3 style="margin: 0px 0px 0.3em; padding-top: 0.5em; padding-bottom: 0.17em; border-bottom: none; width: auto; line-height: 21px; background: none rgb(255, 255, 255);">Consultants</h3><dl style="margin-top: 0.2em; margin-bottom: 0.5em; line-height: 21px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><dd style="line-height: 1.5em; margin-left: 1.6em; margin-bottom: 0.1em; margin-right: 0px;"><dl style="margin-top: 0.2em; margin-bottom: 0.5em;"><dd style="line-height: 1.5em; margin-left: 1.6em; margin-bottom: 0.1em; margin-right: 0px;">See also: <a href="https://ballotpedia.org/Vendors_and_consultants_to_California%27s_2010_ballot_proposition_campaigns" title="Vendors and consultants to California's 2010 ballot proposition campaigns" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Vendors and consultants to California's 2010 ballot proposition campaigns</a></dd></dl></dd></dl><a href="https://ballotpedia.org/California_political_consultants" title="California political consultants" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Political consultants</a> who provided paid services to the "Yes on 20" campaign included:<ul style="line-height: 21px; list-style-type: square; margin: 0.3em 0px 0px 1.6em; padding: 0px; list-style-image: url(" images="images" bullet-icon.png="bullet-icon.png" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb"><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a target="blank" class="external text" href="http://acpublicaffairs.com/" style="text-decoration: none; padding-right: 13px; background: url(" images="images" external-link-ltr-icon.png="external-link-ltr-icon.png" right="right" center="center" no-repeat="no-repeat">AC Public Affairs</a>: $147,500</li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://ballotpedia.org/Goddard_Clausen_Strategic_Advocacy" title="Goddard Clausen Strategic Advocacy" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Goddard Clausen Strategic Advocacy</a>: $549,470</li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://ballotpedia.org/Meredian_Pacific" title="Meredian Pacific" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Meredian Pacific</a>: $217,743</li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://ballotpedia.org/National_Petition_Management" title="National Petition Management" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">National Petition Management</a>: $1,937,380</li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://ballotpedia.org/Nielsen,Merksamer,Parrinello,Mueller%26_Naylor" title="Nielsen, Merksamer, Parrinello, Mueller & Naylor" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Nielsen, Merksamer, Parrinello, Mueller & Naylor</a>: $385,321</li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://ballotpedia.org/Public_Opinion_Strategies" title="Public Opinion Strategies" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Public Opinion Strategies</a>: $96,000</li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;">Alice Huffman. Huffman, who is the president of the California chapter of the <a href="https://ballotpedia.org/NAACP" title="NAACP" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">NAACP</a>, is one of the signers of the ballot argument in favor of Proposition 20 in the state's official Voter Guide. She is also a paid consultant to the campaign through her consulting business, AC Public Affairs, earning about $15,000/month to "contact other minority groups [to boost] support for the redistricting measure."<a href="https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_20,Congressional_Redistricting(2010)#cite_note-9" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">[9]</a></li></ul><h2 style="font-weight: normal; margin: 0px 0px 0.6em; padding-top: 0.5em; padding-bottom: 0.17em; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); width: auto; line-height: 21px; background: none rgb(255, 255, 255);">Opposition</h2>Opposition to Proposition 20 is primarily driven by the supporters of <a href="https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_27,Elimination_of_Citizen_Redistricting_Commission(2010)" title="California Proposition 27, Elimination of Citizen Redistricting Commission (2010)" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Proposition 27</a>.<h3 style="margin: 0px 0px 0.3em; padding-top: 0.5em; padding-bottom: 0.17em; border-bottom: none; width: auto; line-height: 21px; background: none rgb(255, 255, 255);">Donors against</h3><dl style="margin-top: 0.2em; margin-bottom: 0.5em; line-height: 21px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><dd style="line-height: 1.5em; margin-left: 1.6em; margin-bottom: 0.1em; margin-right: 0px;"><dl style="margin-top: 0.2em; margin-bottom: 0.5em;"><dd style="line-height: 1.5em; margin-left: 1.6em; margin-bottom: 0.1em; margin-right: 0px;">
Three campaign committees registered in opposition to Proposition 20. They were:Main article: <a href="https://ballotpedia.org/Donations_to_California%27s_2010_ballot_propositions#All_campaign_committees" title="Donations to California's 2010 ballot propositions" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Donations to California's 2010 ballot propositions</a></dd></dl></dd></dl><ul style="line-height: 21px; list-style-type: square; margin: 0.3em 0px 0px 1.6em; padding: 0px; list-style-image: url(" images="images" bullet-icon.png="bullet-icon.png" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb"><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;">The "No on 20" campaign committee. This committee raised about $553,000, including $100,000 donations from Fred Eychaner and the "United Here Tip State and Local Fund" and a $20,000 donation from Thomas O'Donnell, a lobbyist who lives in Washington, D.C.</li></ul><ul style="line-height: 21px; list-style-type: square; margin: 0.3em 0px 0px 1.6em; padding: 0px; list-style-image: url(" images="images" bullet-icon.png="bullet-icon.png" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb"><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;">The "California Coalition for Leadership and Accountability in Budget and Redistricting, Yes on 25 & 27, No on 20" campaign committee. This committee raised no funds of any significance.</li></ul><ul style="line-height: 21px; list-style-type: square; margin: 0.3em 0px 0px 1.6em; padding: 0px; list-style-image: url(" images="images" bullet-icon.png="bullet-icon.png" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb"><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;">The "Yes On FAIR, Yes On 27, No On 20" campaign committee, which raised $7.6 million, including a <a href="https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_27,Elimination_of_Citizen_Redistricting_Commission(2010)#Politicians_who_are_donors" title="California Proposition 27, Elimination of Citizen Redistricting Commission (2010)" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">substantial amount of money</a> from 17 members of the <a href="https://ballotpedia.org/California" title="California" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">California</a>'s delegation to the <a href="https://ballotpedia.org/U.S.Congress" title="U.S. Congress" class="mw-redirect" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">U.S. Congress</a> as well as members of the <a href="https://ballotpedia.org/California_State_Legislature" title="California State Legislature" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">California State Legislature</a>.</li></ul><h3 style="margin: 0px 0px 0.3em; padding-top: 0.5em; padding-bottom: 0.17em; border-bottom: none; width: auto; line-height: 21px; background: none rgb(255, 255, 255);">Arguments against</h3>Arguments were submitted to the official <a href="https://ballotpedia.org/California_Voter_Guide(official)" title="California Voter Guide (official)" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">California Voter Guide</a> urging a "no" vote on Proposition 20, as were rebuttals to the arguments provided by Prop 20 supporters. The signers of these arguments were:<ul style="line-height: 21px; list-style-type: square; margin: 0.3em 0px 0px 1.6em; padding: 0px; list-style-image: url(" images="images" bullet-icon.png="bullet-icon.png" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb"><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;">Daniel H. Lowenstein, a professor at UCLA and a former chairman of the <a href="https://ballotpedia.org/California_Fair_Political_Practices_Commission" title="California Fair Political Practices Commission" class="mw-redirect" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">California Fair Political Practices Commission</a>.<a href="https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_20,Congressional_Redistricting(2010)#cite_note-tv-10" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">[10]</a></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;">Mark Murray, the executive director of "<a href="https://ballotpedia.org/Californians_Against_Waste" title="Californians Against Waste" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Californians Against Waste</a>"</li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;">Hank Lacayo, president of the "<a href="https://ballotpedia.org/Congress_of_California_Seniors" title="Congress of California Seniors" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Congress of California Seniors</a>"</li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;">Aubry L. Stone, president of the <a href="https://ballotpedia.org/California_Black_Chamber_of_Commerce" title="California Black Chamber of Commerce" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">California Black Chamber of Commerce</a></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;">Carl Pope, chairman of the <a href="https://ballotpedia.org/Sierra_Club" title="Sierra Club" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Sierra Club</a></li></ul>The themes of the main arguments they make against Proposition 20 (and in favor of <a href="https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_27,Elimination_of_Citizen_Redistricting_Commission(2010)" title="California Proposition 27, Elimination of Citizen Redistricting Commission (2010)" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Proposition 27</a>) are:<ul style="line-height: 21px; list-style-type: square; margin: 0.3em 0px 0px 1.6em; padding: 0px; list-style-image: url(" images="images" bullet-icon.png="bullet-icon.png" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb"><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;">Proposition 20 will be "a waste of taxpayer dollars."<a href="https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_20,Congressional_Redistricting(2010)#cite_note-ovg-7" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">[7]</a></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;">Proposition 20 is said by its opponents to turn back the clock on redistricting law. Proposition 20 mandates that all districts (including Assembly, Senate, and Congress) must be segregated by income level and mandates that all districts be segregated according to 'similar living standards' and that districts include only people 'with similar work opportunities.'"<a href="https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_20,Congressional_Redistricting(2010)#cite_note-ovg-7" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">[7]</a></li></ul><h2 style="font-weight: normal; margin: 0px 0px 0.6em; padding-top: 0.5em; padding-bottom: 0.17em; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); width: auto; line-height: 21px; background: none rgb(255, 255, 255);">Editorial opinion</h2><dl style="margin-top: 0.2em; margin-bottom: 0.5em; line-height: 21px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><dd style="line-height: 1.5em; margin-left: 1.6em; margin-bottom: 0.1em; margin-right: 0px;"><dl style="margin-top: 0.2em; margin-bottom: 0.5em;"><dd style="line-height: 1.5em; margin-left: 1.6em; margin-bottom: 0.1em; margin-right: 0px;">See also: <a href="https://ballotpedia.org/Endorsements_of_California_ballot_measures,2010" title="Endorsements of California ballot measures, 2010" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Endorsements of California ballot measures, 2010</a></dd></dl></dd></dl><h3 style="margin: 0px 0px 0.3em; padding-top: 0.5em; padding-bottom: 0.17em; border-bottom: none; width: auto; line-height: 21px; background: none rgb(255, 255, 255);">Yes on Prop 20</h3>Newspapers that have editorialized in favor of Proposition 20 include:<ul style="line-height: 21px; list-style-type: square; margin: 0.3em 0px 0px 1.6em; padding: 0px; list-style-image: url(" images="images" bullet-icon.png="bullet-icon.png" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb"><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;">Contra Costa Times: "If voters adopt Proposition 20, California finally will have a workable, bipartisan system of drawing both legislative and congressional districts in a manner that makes sense for California voters rather than for the protection of incumbents and to give an unfair advantage to candidates in the dominant political party."<a href="https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_20,Congressional_Redistricting(2010)#cite_note-11" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">[11]</a></li></ul><ul style="line-height: 21px; list-style-type: square; margin: 0.3em 0px 0px 1.6em; padding: 0px; list-style-image: url(" images="images" bullet-icon.png="bullet-icon.png" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb"><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;">Lompoc Record: "the commission holds great promise for the future of California’s political landscape."<a href="https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_20,Congressional_Redistricting(2010)#cite_note-12" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">[12]</a></li></ul><ul style="line-height: 21px; list-style-type: square; margin: 0.3em 0px 0px 1.6em; padding: 0px; list-style-image: url(" images="images" bullet-icon.png="bullet-icon.png" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb"><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;">The Long Beach Press-Telegram: "Politicians despise the independent commission because they no longer get to choose their own voters and keep seats safe for their parties. This is particularly true of Democrats because they currently hold more of those seats than Republicans. They fought the redistricting proposal in 2008, and now they're bankrolling Proposition 27 on the November ballot to kill the commission before it has even begun its work. Californians must reject this unconscionable power grab by voting yes on Proposition 20 and no on Proposition 27."<a href="https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_20,Congressional_Redistricting(2010)#cite_note-13" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">[13]</a></li></ul><ul style="line-height: 21px; list-style-type: square; margin: 0.3em 0px 0px 1.6em; padding: 0px; list-style-image: url(" images="images" bullet-icon.png="bullet-icon.png" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb"><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;">Los Angeles Daily News: "Today nearly every California seat in the Legislature and Congress is safe, and that's one reason lawmakers have little incentive to work together."<a href="https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_20,Congressional_Redistricting(2010)#cite_note-14" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">[14]</a></li></ul><ul style="line-height: 21px; list-style-type: square; margin: 0.3em 0px 0px 1.6em; padding: 0px; list-style-image: url(" images="images" bullet-icon.png="bullet-icon.png" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb"><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;">The <a href="https://ballotpedia.org/Los_Angeles_Times" title="Los Angeles Times" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Los Angeles Times</a>: "[Prop 20] may gradually break down some of the impediments to efficiency and deal-making that have thwarted Sacramento in recent years and that have wreaked havoc in Washington as well."<a href="https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_20,Congressional_Redistricting(2010)#cite_note-15" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">[15]</a></li></ul><ul style="line-height: 21px; list-style-type: square; margin: 0.3em 0px 0px 1.6em; padding: 0px; list-style-image: url(" images="images" bullet-icon.png="bullet-icon.png" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb"><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;">North County Times: "California's delegation to the House of Representatives is as politically polarized as the state Legislature, and for the same reason: Gerrymandered districts that ensure incumbents are rarely challenged, and are answerable to the most ideologically inflexible voters."<a href="https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_20,Congressional_Redistricting(2010)#cite_note-16" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">[16]</a></li></ul><ul style="line-height: 21px; list-style-type: square; margin: 0.3em 0px 0px 1.6em; padding: 0px; list-style-image: url(" images="images" bullet-icon.png="bullet-icon.png" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb"><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;">The <a href="https://ballotpedia.org/Orange_County_Register" title="Orange County Register" class="mw-redirect" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Orange County Register</a>: "Proposition 20 is one of the most critical reforms on November's ballot, one of the few that could actually make a difference in reforming politics in California."<a href="https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_20,Congressional_Redistricting(2010)#cite_note-17" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">[17]</a></li></ul><ul style="line-height: 21px; list-style-type: square; margin: 0.3em 0px 0px 1.6em; padding: 0px; list-style-image: url(" images="images" bullet-icon.png="bullet-icon.png" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb"><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;">Riverside Press Enterprise: "California has no reason to backtrack on governmental reforms. The dismal records of state and federal legislators should spur voters to expand changes that can improve government, not toss the whole effort out. Thus in November voters should pass Proposition 20, and reject Proposition 27."<a href="https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_20,Congressional_Redistricting(2010)#cite_note-18" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">[18]</a></li></ul><ul style="line-height: 21px; list-style-type: square; margin: 0.3em 0px 0px 1.6em; padding: 0px; list-style-image: url(" images="images" bullet-icon.png="bullet-icon.png" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb"><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;">San Bernardino Sun: "The process of selecting the first commission has been completely transparent, with all 30,000 applications posted on the Web and 120 finalist interviews streamed live. Once the 14-member panel is chosen, it will work in public, in contrast to the closed-door plotting in Sacramento."<a href="https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_20,Congressional_Redistricting(2010)#cite_note-19" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">[19]</a></li></ul><ul style="line-height: 21px; list-style-type: square; margin: 0.3em 0px 0px 1.6em; padding: 0px; list-style-image: url(" images="images" bullet-icon.png="bullet-icon.png" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb"><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://ballotpedia.org/San_Diego_Union-Tribune" title="San Diego Union-Tribune" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">San Diego Union-Tribune</a>: "Given this troubling picture, voters should embrace a redistricting system likely to yield a California congressional delegation with fewer ideologues. Voters are demanding change – and with good reason. Proposition 20 is about bringing change and undermining the status quo. We urge a yes vote."<a href="https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_20,Congressional_Redistricting(2010)#cite_note-20" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">[20]</a></li></ul><ul style="line-height: 21px; list-style-type: square; margin: 0.3em 0px 0px 1.6em; padding: 0px; list-style-image: url(" images="images" bullet-icon.png="bullet-icon.png" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb"><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;">Santa Rose Press Democrat: "There is a public price to pay for letting legislators draw their own districts, in effect choosing their voters. Incumbents whose only threats are term limits and primary challengers have little incentive to compromise."<a href="https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_20,Congressional_Redistricting(2010)#cite_note-21" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">[21]</a></li></ul><ul style="line-height: 21px; list-style-type: square; margin: 0.3em 0px 0px 1.6em; padding: 0px; list-style-image: url(" images="images" bullet-icon.png="bullet-icon.png" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb"><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;">Santa Cruz Sentinel: "Proposition 20 would add congressional districts to the purview of the 14-member citizen panel and take it away from the very politicians who benefit from non-competitive districts."<a href="https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_20,Congressional_Redistricting(2010)#cite_note-22" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">[22]</a></li></ul><ul style="line-height: 21px; list-style-type: square; margin: 0.3em 0px 0px 1.6em; padding: 0px; list-style-image: url(" images="images" bullet-icon.png="bullet-icon.png" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb"><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;">San Gabriel Valley Tribune: "Once these earnest citizen watchdogs get rolling, no one in the state - excepting the venal, self-interested pols who used to have the job - will have the kind of expertise they will in California's electoral demographics. They will be perfectly equipped to redraw the congressional districts that, in theory, bring together true communities of interest within a district's boundaries to represent California in our federal government."<a href="https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_20,Congressional_Redistricting(2010)#cite_note-23" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">[23]</a></li></ul><ul style="line-height: 21px; list-style-type: square; margin: 0.3em 0px 0px 1.6em; padding: 0px; list-style-image: url(" images="images" bullet-icon.png="bullet-icon.png" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb"><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;">Ventura County Star: "Proposition 20 would not involve any additional state cost. Best of all, it embodies the values of good government, efficiency and economy in mapping out new districts."<a href="https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_20,Congressional_Redistricting(2010)#cite_note-24" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">[24]</a></li></ul><h3 style="margin: 0px 0px 0.3em; padding-top: 0.5em; padding-bottom: 0.17em; border-bottom: none; width: auto; line-height: 21px; background: none rgb(255, 255, 255);">No on Prop 20</h3><ul style="line-height: 21px; list-style-type: square; margin: 0.3em 0px 0px 1.6em; padding: 0px; list-style-image: url(" images="images" bullet-icon.png="bullet-icon.png" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb"><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://ballotpedia.org/Sacramento_Bee" title="Sacramento Bee" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Sacramento Bee</a>: "While [supporters of Proposition 20] are right to say that many congressional districts are drawn for purely partisan purposes and unfairly protect incumbents, reform needs to happen on the national level, not just in a single state. California's interests could be harmed if it alone undertook an experiment in reforming how congressional districts are drawn. Imprudently mapped districts could leave the state with far less seniority in Congress than it now enjoys, giving the state less clout over appropriations and legislation."<a href="https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_20,Congressional_Redistricting(2010)#cite_note-25" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">[25]</a></li></ul><ul style="line-height: 21px; list-style-type: square; margin: 0.3em 0px 0px 1.6em; padding: 0px; list-style-image: url(" images="images" bullet-icon.png="bullet-icon.png" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb"><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://ballotpedia.org/San_Francisco_Bay_Guardian" title="San Francisco Bay Guardian" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">San Francisco Bay Guardian</a>: "But the commission is hardly a fair body — it has the same number of Republicans as Democrats in a state where there are far more Democrats than Republicans. And most states still draw lines the old-fashioned way, so Proposition 20 could give the GOP an advantage in a Democratic state. States like Texas and Florida, notorious for pro-Republican gerrymandering, aren't planning to change how they do their districts."<a href="https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_20,Congressional_Redistricting(2010)#cite_note-26" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">[26]</a></li><li>
</li></ul><a href="http://www.prwatch.org/news/2016/05/13111/high-tech-gerrymandering-trial-wisconsin" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">http://www.prwatch.org/news/2016/05/13111/high-tech-gerrymandering-trial-wisconsin</a>A case that advocates hope could go up to the U.S. Supreme Court and set a new standard against partisan gerrymandering is being heard in federal court in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin this week.A group of Democratic Wisconsin voters are suing the State of Wisconsin, arguing that the legislative district maps drawn by GOP politicians in 2011 are so skewed and long-lasting that their voting rights were violated.University of Chicago Law School Professor Nicholas Stephanopoulous charged that Wisconsin’s Republican party engaged in the "worst gerrymander of modern American history" in opening arguments today. Stephanopoulous asked the three judge federal panel to "intervene to safeguard the democratic process."The lawsuit challenges 2011 Act 43, which redrew Wisconsin state legislative boundaries after the 2010 Census. The maps were redrawn behind closed doors at the law firm of Michael Best & Friedrich by GOP aides in a process a federal court previously described as a <a href="http://www.prwatch.org/news/2012/02/11321/shameful-wi-redistricting-awaits-final-ruling" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none;">"shameful"</a> attempt to hide from public scrutiny. GOP legislators signed secrecy oaths, thousands of files were destroyed, computers were confiscated and <a href="http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/new-court-filing-documents-were-deleted-from-gop-redistricting-computers-0p9530v-197833071.html" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none;">found to have been tampered with</a>.At today's hearing, Stephanopoulous described how GOP aides relied upon experts and sophisticated statistical analyses to pack districts, so they increasingly skewed Republican. Multiple draft maps were produced and run by Political Science Professor Roland Keith Gaddie of the University of Oklahoma, who carried out "sensitivity testing" for Act 43."We found 10 separate draft plans analyzed by spreadsheets. The only reason to carry out this testing is to ensure that the gerrymandering is durable," said Stephanopoulous.Unlike gerrymanders of old, which looped in broad geographical areas and presented highly distorted maps, this new, high-tech method helped the GOP create districts that appeared aesthetically pleasing, but skewed redder and redder in draft after draft. Memos on the maps were prepared for individual GOP legislators, but not for Democratic legislators, who were entirely excluded from the process until the day of the vote.Tad Ottman, who worked for Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald and who played a key role in the redistricting, told Republican legislators at the time that "We have an opportunity and an obligation to draw these maps that Republicans haven't had in decades," and "the maps will determine who is here 10 years from now." Ottman is expected to testify tomorrow.The state "will not be able to show that this process was in the interest of all the people in the state of Wisconsin," argued Stephanopoulous.Republicans disregarded traditional county and city boundaries that are normally used to draw districts. "Act 43 splits 58 counties even though county boundaries are supposed to be respected." For the first time, gerrymandered maps were used to draw wards, when previously wards had been used to draw maps. Memos and draft maps were prepared for review by individual Republican legislators, but Democratic legislators were entirely excluded.<div class="clearfix" style="line-height: 24px;">Whereas the previous case focused on the impact of the redistricting on minority populations and forced the redrawing of two districts in Milwaukee, today’s suit focused on what plaintiffs allege was a "deliberate, severe, durable, unjustified gerrymander."In response, Wisconsin Assistant Attorney General Brian Keenan argued that plaintiffs were presenting a "radical redefinition" of gerrymandering and that "traditional gerrymandering" meant strangely drawn districts. "There aren't districts like that in Act 43."He also argued that partisan scores for each district are "far from crystal balls." "One district has a score of 51.22 percent. Frankly these are educated guesses that don’t predict the future," said Keenan.Plaintiffs point to <a href="http://static1.squarespace.com/static/559c1a7be4b0a2650c6c39b3/t/559d3cece4b055d80315b356/1436368108480/Complaint.pdf" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none;">data from the 2012 and 2014 elections </a>to demonstrate the problem. In 2012, Republican candidates won 60 of 99 seats, despite the fact that Democratic candidates won a majority of the statewide vote. Plaintiffs characterize these votes as "wasted.""Because of the partisan gerrymander enacted in 2011, Democrats cannot obtain a majority in the state Assembly even if they receive a considerable majority of the statewide vote for Assembly candidates, and this will be true so long as this gerrymander remains in effect. This is not democracy," explains one of the voter plaintiffs, Professor of Law Emeritus at the University of Wisconsin-Madison Bill Whitford.The case shows how Governor Walker and the Wisconsin GOP attempted "to transform Wisconsin into a one-party state," said Jay Heck of Wisconsin Common Cause, who was observing the trial.Another set of data is based upon a metric called the "efficiency gap." The efficiency gap is calculated by dividing the number of "wasted votes" by total votes. Stephanopolous previously told public radio that "the average gap in all states over the last 40 years has been zero," meaning redistricting plans didn’t give either political party an advantage. But he says Wisconsin’s gap after its redistricting plan went into effect was 13 percent.While the U.S. Supreme Court has shown a willingness to find this type of hyper-partisan gerrymandering unconstitutional, until now there hasn’t been a workable standard to distinguish between legal and unconstitutional line drawing. Plaintiffs hope that the "efficiency gap" calculation might serve as an easy-to-measure, objective new standard.Sachin Chheda, director of the Fair Elections Project, summed up the objective of the lawsuit well when he said, "Under the current maps politicians choose their voters. We want a map where voters choose their politicians instead."David Armiak contributed to this report. The trial began today and is expected to last four days. For complete trial briefs, see <a href="http://www.fairelectionsproject.org/redistricting-documents" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none;">www.fairelectionsproject.org</a>.- See more at: http://www.prwatch.org/news/2016/05/13111/high-tech-gerrymandering-trial-wisconsin#sthash.Stam9YIk.dpuf==<a href="https://us-mg5.mail.yahoo.com/neo/launch?.rand=esmkmv4qcvjj7#3913245312">https://us-mg5.mail.yahoo.com/neo/launch?.rand=esmkmv4qcvjj7#3913245312</a>facing sothis week a panel of three

federal judges refused to delay its order that North Carolina redraw

congressional maps before the state's March 15 primary elections on the

grounds that North Carolina's 1st and 12th districts were

unconstitutionally gerrymandered along racial lines.

The ruling was not a surprise: North Carolina's congressional and

legislative districts have been embroiled in litigation since they were

devised by state Republicans after the 2010 Census. In their decision,

the judges agreed with voting rights plaintiffs who argued that the

unconstitutional way race was used as a "nonnegotiable criterion" in

drawing up the maps outweighed the inconvenience the ruling posed to the

state, which would could be forced to move its primaries if the ruling

stands.

State attorneys immediately appealed the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court; <a id="yui_3_16_0_1_1455381332111_18776" rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://org2.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=EXEo9x%2FXKzZJMpFHMEkBA6DHvA8T5rim">elections experts are split</a> in their predictions about which way the high court will rule.

The North Carolina case highlights the growing role of powerful,

well-funded political organizations in the high-stakes world of election

map-making. In North Carolina, the Republican State Leadership

Committee — a Washington, D.C.-based super PAC created in 2002 to elect

state-level GOP candidates — played a uniquely influential role in both

creating the state's contested districts and helping to elect state

lawmakers and a N.C. Supreme Court Justice who would pass and approve

them.

WINNING THE LEGISLATURE: As

documented by Facing South and others, in 2010 the Republican State

Leadership Committee made it a priority to win over state legislatures

in time for the biennial redistricting process. The RSLC funneled $1.25

million to Real Jobs NC, a 527 political committee launched by

conservative donors including Art Pope, who sat on the group's board.

Real Jobs NC was part of a constellation of Pope-connected groups that

targeted nearly two-dozen races. Republicans won 80 percent of the

contests, helping fuel the GOP's historic capture of the N.C. General

Assembly, and putting Republicans in charge of drawing the state's new

Congressional and legislative districts.

DRAWING THE LINES: After winning the election, the Republican

State Leadership Committee turned to its nonprofit arm, the State

Government Leadership Foundation, to aid in creating North Carolina's

new political districts.

As <a rel="nofollow" target="blank" href="http://org2.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=NlJiGpIH%2FSs830hM6ZCMe6DHvA8T5rim">reported by ProPublica</a>, Chris Jankowski — who headed both the RSLC and the Leadership Foundation — wrote a <a rel="nofollow" target="blank" href="http://org2.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=jV3ZaNYDQjlfErEnsBxkeqDHvA8T5rim">letter</a>

to North Carolina lawmakers describing the role his groups could play

in the process. The letter, which became public as a result of the

redistricting lawsuits, read in part:

<blockquote> Our team would be happy to assist in drawing proposed

maps, interpreting data, or providing advice … We are engaged in a

number of states and believe we are playing a meaningful role in helping

draw fair and legal lines that will allow us to run competitive

elections in 2012 and in future cycles.</blockquote>

Heading the Leadership Foundation's redistricting team was Tom Hofeller, a <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://org2.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=oO4jVRIHvXlKpOdSm5taRXEQQs6p4oN7">GOP mapmaking veteran</a>.

On Feb. 1, 2011, Hofeller came to North Carolina for the first of 10

visits he would make to the state. According to depositions gathered in

the lawsuit, Hofeller and others — including Art Pope — used Hofeller's

software to create a so-called "10-3" map that would pack Democrats (and

African Americans) into three districts, allowing 10 others to be

dominated by Republicans.

SECURING THE COURT: With

North Carolina's controversial districts guaranteed to face a robust

legal challenge, the RSLC moved aggressively to secure a conservative

majority on the N.C. Supreme Court, where the redistricting lawsuit

would be heard.

In 2012, with conservative Justice Paul Newby (in photo) facing a

tough election and the court's 5-4 conservative majority on the line,

the RSLC funneled nearly $1.2 million into the North Carolina-based

group <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://org2.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=s0NbAhDG3LFnso%2BBGGzNNKDHvA8T5rim">Justice for All N.C.</a>,

formed in May of that year. Justice for All then used that money and

donations from other sources to fund another state-based group, the <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://org2.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=OQHaJrfdaan76ccU8cU4kaDHvA8T5rim">North Carolina Judicial Coalition</a>,

which ultimately spent nearly $2 million on ads supporting Newby.

Justice for All also spent $175,000 directly on ads supporting Newby,

who beat opponent Sam Ervin by a 52-48 margin.

In 2014, the RSLC sent over another $1.3 million to Justice for All, which spent nearly $900,000 on a <a rel="nofollow" target="blank" href="http://org2.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=wzc3OqVifho0wYumTGjBKKDHvA8T5rim">widely-panned attack ad </a>against incumbent justice Robin Hudson, and <a rel="nofollow" target="blank" href="http://org2.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=6dw2SRkaM%2FJZ51DEaMAWz6DHvA8T5rim">$425,000 more</a> supporting conservative candidate Mike Robinson in a second supreme court race. Both liberal incumbents held onto their seats.

The N.C. Supreme Court <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://org2.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=4ls1IIrWEM7EKlBfcefEeaDHvA8T5rim">ruled twice</a>

to accept the congressional and state legislative districts, most

recently in December 2015 on a 4-3 decision following party lines.

Justice Newby <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://org2.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=gKKhD16IScRm3vtCvb7fdaDHvA8T5rim">refused a request</a>

from attorneys involved in the redistricting lawsuit that he recuse

himself, given the role the RSLC played in both drawing the maps and

electing him to office.

The conservative N.C. Supreme Court majority approved the maps in

December even after the U.S. Supreme Court, which remanded the case back

to North Carolina, had taken a clear stand against racial

gerrymandering in a similar case in Alabama. As legal expert Billy

Corriher <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://org2.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=6381hk6Njb2hqNBAwR9R8qDHvA8T5rim">wrote for the Center for American Progress</a>,

"When it upheld the maps [in December], the North Carolina Supreme

Court's four-justice conservative majority essentially ignored the rules

laid out in the Supreme Court's Alabama decision."

This week, the state Supreme Court <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://org2.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=Ndka72ZJfJbkx%2FkpRzJRXHEQQs6p4oN7">refused to rehear a different case</a> that challenges both the legislative and congressional districts, a case that may also end up at the U.S. Supreme Court.

Big Money, court conflicts

The RSLC's role in North Carolina's judicial elections has been

especially controversial given the backing the political group receives

from key corporate interests in North Carolina, including companies and

groups with business before the N.C. Supreme Court.

A Facing South/Institute for Southern Studies analysis of reports

submitted to the Internal Revenue Service finds that eight North

Carolina companies have given $100,000 or more to the RSLC since 2011.

While the donations slowed slightly in 2015, they continue to come from

many of the companies that have been faithful donors over the years.

Total contributions from North Carolina businesses to the RSLC totaled

nearly $733,000 last year.

Among the largest North Carolina backers of the Republican State Leadership Committee:

REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Leading the pack by a wide margin is tobacco

giant Reynolds American, based in Winston-Salem, which has given the

RSLC close to $3.1 million over the past five years. Last year, Reynolds

completed a <a id="yui_3_16_0_1_1455381332111_18770" rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://org2.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=oKHXbLzS8X%2F%2BU5DWh6FQYaDHvA8T5rim">$27.4 billion merger</a>

with Greensboro-based tobacco company Lorillard, which is the state's

second-biggest donor to the RSLC, having pitched in nearly $335,000

since 2011. The merger <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://org2.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=3mWkU7gE0AovV%2F%2B9G2Z6raDHvA8T5rim">unites</a>

two already substantial political donors to conservative groups. In

addition to funneling money through the RSLC, the two companies — which

have had key cases appear in N.C. courts in recent years — have been

directly involved in spending on judicial elections: Since 2012,

Reynolds American has given Justice for All $130,000 and Lorillard has

donated $25,000. Reynolds gave $150,000 to the N.C. Judicial Coalition

in 2012.

DUKE ENERGY: The nation's

biggest utility company, which has had considerable business before the

high court regarding rate hikes and environmental issues such as its

2014 coal ash spill, has given consistently every year since 2011 for a

total of $305,000.

Other leading corporate donors to the RSLC from North Carolina include Time Warner Cable ($300,000) and Variety Stores,

the retail chain owned by Art Pope ($250,000). The following chart

outlines North Carolina's top corporate contributors to the RSLC (click on it for a larger version):...

The events of 2003 in Texas were important to the political history of this country. Congressman Tom DeLay led a Republican effort to gerrymander the state's thirty-two congressional districts to defeat all ten of the Anglo Democratic incumbents and to elect more Republicans; Democratic state lawmakers fled the state in an effort to defeat the plan. The Lone Star State uproar attracted attention worldwide. The Republicans won this showdown, gaining six additional seats from Texas and protecting the one endangered Republican incumbent. Some of the methods used by DeLay to achieve this result, however, led to his criminal indictment and ultimately to his downfall.
With its eye-opening research, readable style, and insightful commentary, <cite style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">Lines in the Sand </cite>provides a front-line account of what happened in 2003, often through the personal stories of members of both parties and of the minority activist groups caught in a political vortex. Law professor Steve Bickerstaff provides much-needed historical perspective and also probes the aftermath of the 2003 redistricting, including the criminal prosecutions of DeLay and his associates and the events that led to DeLay's eventual resignation from the U.S. House of Representatives. As a result, Bickerstaff graphically shows a dark underside of American politics—the ruthless use of public institutional power for partisan gain.- See more at: http://utpress.utexas.edu/index.php/books/biclin#sthash.GSpaGvxI.dpuf

<p style="margin: 0px 0px 22px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 25px; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Before the 2010 election, conservatives launched a plan to win control of state legislatures before the census. The idea was to be in power when national congressional districts were redrawn in order to fix them so Republicans would win a majority of districts.

<p style="margin: 0px 0px 22px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 25px; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;">The <a href="http://www.redistrictingmajorityproject.com/" style="text-decoration: none;">Redistricting Majority Project</a> was hugely successful. In 2012, Barack Obama was elected President by nearly 3.5 million votes. In Congressional races, Democrats drew nearly 1.4 million more votes than Republicans yet  Republicans won control of the House 234 seats to 201 seats.

<p style="margin: 0px 0px 22px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 25px; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;">By pumping $30 million into state races to win the legislatures, <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/03/opinion/sunday/the-great-gerrymander-of-2012.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&" style="font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none;">Republicans redrew state maps</a> in states such as Arizona, Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Texas, Florida and Ohio to place all of the Democrats into just a few districts.<p style="margin: 0px 0px 22px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 25px; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;">

In this manner, Democrats win heavily in a couple districts and lose the rest.

<p style="margin: 0px 0px 22px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 25px; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Where is your coverage of this vote stealing, "liberal media"? You're willing to cover voter ID laws, why can't you cover real vote stealing?

<div style=" text-align: right; position: relative; top: -28px; left: 2px; width: 80px; border: 1px solid rgb(153, 153, 153); padding: 2px; line-height: 10px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;">Click to enlarge.</div>

</div>

<p style="margin: 0px 0px 22px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 25px; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Source: <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/11/republicans-gerrymandering-house-representatives-election-chart" style="text-decoration: none;">Mother Jones</a>.

=http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/how-republicans-rig-the-game-20131111?page=3As the nation recovers from the Republican shutdown of government, the question Americans should be asking is not "Why did the GOP do that to us?" but "Why were they even relevant in the first place?" So dramatically have the demographic and electoral tides in this country turned against the Republican Party that, in a representative democracy worthy of the designation, the Grand Old Party should be watching from the sidelines and licking its wounds. Not only did Barack Obama win a second term in an electoral landslide in 2012, but he is also just the fourth president in a century to have won two elections with more than 50 percent of the popular vote. What's more, the party controls 55 seats in the Senate, and Democratic candidates for the House received well over a million more votes than their Republican counterparts in the election last year. And yet, John Boehner still wields the gavel in the House and Republican resistance remains a defining force in the Senate, frustrating Obama's ambitious agenda.<a class="inStoryLink" href="http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-gops-real-agenda-20130313" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: 0px 0px; background-repeat: initial;">The GOP's real agenda: How Republicans' politics are harsher than ever</a>How is this possible? National Republicans have waged an unrelenting campaign to exploit every weakness and anachronism in our electoral system. Through a combination of hyperpartisan redistricting of the House, unprecedented obstructionism in the Senate and racist voter suppression in the states, today's GOP has locked in political power that it could never have secured on a level playing field.Despite the fact that Republican Congressional candidates received nearly 1.4 million fewer votes than Democratic candidates last November, the Republicans lost only eight seats from their historic 2010 romp, allowing them to preserve a fat 33-seat edge in the House. Unscrupulous Republican gerrymandering following the 2010 census made the difference, according to a statistical analysis conducted by the Princeton Election Consortium. Under historically typical redistricting, House Republicans would now likely be clinging to a reedy five-seat majority. "There's the normal tug of war of American politics," says Sam Wang, founder of the consortium. "Trying to protect one congressman here, or unseat another one there." The Princeton model was built, he says, to detect "whether something got pulled off-kilter on top of that."Did it ever. In Pennsylvania, Democratic candidates took 51 percent of the vote across the state's 18 districts, but only five of the seats. In Wang's model, the odds against Democrats emerging at an eight-seat disadvantage are 1,000-to-1. And Pennsylvania was not alone. According to the Election Consortium analysis, gerrymandering helped Republicans secure 13 seats in just six states – including Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Virginia and North Carolina – that, under normal rules of engagement, Democrats would have won.This tilting of the electoral playing field was the result of a sophisticated campaign coordinated at the highest levels of Republican politics through a group called the Republican State Leadership Committee (RSLC) – a Super-PAC-like entity chaired by Bush-era RNC chairman Ed Gillespie and backed by Karl Rove. Shortly after President Obama's first election, the RSLC launched the Redistricting Majority Project (REDMAP) with an explicit strategy to "keep or win Republican control of state legislatures with the largest impact on congressional redistricting." The logic was simple. Every decade following the census, the task of redrawing federal congressional-district boundaries falls (with some exceptions) to the state legislatures. If Republicans could seize control of statehouses – and, where necessary, have GOP governors in place to rubber-stamp their redistricting maps – the party could lock in new districts that would favor Republican candidates for a decade. As Rove wrote in a Wall Street Journal column in early 2010: "He who controls redistricting can control Congress."In short order, the RSLC raised more than $30 million to fund Rove's vision while its hapless counterpart, the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee, raised barely one-third of that amount. "The Obama people simply didn't understand what was happening to them in 2010," says a prominent Democrat. "They just sat it out, and Republicans ran up the score."The RSLC was particularly focused on states that stood to gain or lose seats. Ohio, for example, would lose two to states with faster population growth. Instead of tweaking the boundaries of existing districts, mapmakers would be empowered in these states to draw new boundaries more or less from scratch – providing "maximum opportunity for mischief," in the words of RSLC president and former REDMAP executive director Chris Jankowski. "You certainly don't want your opponent drawing those lines." On election night in 2010, propelled by Tea Party anger and the RSLC's millions, the GOP seized full-party control of 21 state governments – up from nine the previous year and enough to put the party in charge of redistricting 173 House seats. "Democrats," bragged Jankowski, "will not soon recover from what happened to them on a state level last night."In past elections, a gentleman's agreement prevailed among sitting politicians of both parties that redistricting would keep them safe. But in 2010, Gillespie told reporters, the Republican strategy would be "to maximize gains." Incumbent seats would be made somewhat less safe in service of spreading the GOP's advantage more broadly. "You'd go from these [incumbent] seats that would carve at 60 percent to seats that get carved at 54 percent," he said.RSLC's impact was particularly clear in North Carolina. Leading up to the 2010 election, RSLC steered $1.2 million into the state to fund withering attack ads. Democratic incumbents from poor, rural districts simply didn't have the resources to defend themselves against the onslaught of outside spending – and national Democrats didn't call in the cavalry. As a result, Republicans seized control of the North Carolina state assembly for the first time since Reconstruction and began plotting to take control of the state's 13-seat congressional delegation, which still swung Democrat, seven seats to six.<a class="inStoryLink" href="http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-gop-war-on-voting-20110830" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: 0px 0px; background-repeat: initial;">The GOP's War on Voting</a>In a letter to state legislators, Jankowski wrote, "We have taken the initiative to retain a team of seasoned redistricting experts that we will make available to you at no cost to your caucus for assistance." The RSLC brought on GOP operative Tom Hofeller, who has been in the Republican redistricting game since the 1970s.Employing computer software known as Maptitude, Hofeller and his team used sophisticated data-mining techniques to draw new districts that maximally disadvantaged Democrats. Maptitude advertises the ability to merge precinct-level returns from past elections with federal census data to "identify communities of interest," including "racial or ethnic enclaves that tend to have similar interests and vote as a bloc." Explicit racial gerrymandering is illegal under the 14th Amendment and the Voting Rights Act. So Hofeller used a proxy for race, redrawing boundaries by identifying the wards where President Obama received the highest returns in 2008. According to court documents, this approach "allowed black voters to be carved apart from their white neighbors and friends, on a block-by-block basis."<a class="inStoryLink" href="http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-republicans-war-on-the-poor-20131024" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: 0px 0px; background-repeat: initial;">The Republicans' War on the Poor</a>Hofeller's final state map featured 10 districts gerrymandered to give Republicans a solid edge – between nine and 12 points – matched against just three districts in which Democrats would have a massive advantage of 17 to 23 points. On Election Day, Democrats outpolled the GOP by 81,000 votes, but Republicans took nine of the 13 seats. The RSLC's map was spoiled only by Rep. Mike McIntyre, a Democratic incumbent, who eked out a 654-vote victory in a district drawn to favor the Republican by 11 points. Following Gillespie's share-the-wealth strategy, only two Republicans won more than 60 percent of the vote. By contrast, three of the four Democrats won in landslides of greater than 70 percent. Mel Watt, a black congressman from the 12th district, won an eighth term with 80 percent of the vote. Even before the election, Watt decried his new district lines as part of a "sinister Republican effort to use African-Americans as pawns in their effort to gain partisan, political gains in Congress."The triumphant GOP made no effort to conceal these machinations. "REDMAP's effect on the 2012 election is plain," reads a post-election RSLC report. "Pennsylvanians cast 83,000 more votes for Democratic U.S. House candidates . . . but elected a 13-5 Republican majority to represent them in Washington; Michiganders cast over 240,000 more votes for Democratic congressional candidates than Republicans, but still elected a 9-5 Republican delegation to Congress." In Wisconsin, where $1.1 million in RSLC cash helped flip both chambers of the state legislature, empowering union-busting governor Scott Walker, Republicans prevailed by a five-to-three margin in House seats despite losing the popular vote by more than 43,000. In Ohio, only 52 percent of voters cast ballots for Republicans, but thanks to maps drawn in a Columbus-area Doubletree Hotel, referred to by GOP operatives in court documents as "the bunker," John Boehner's home-state delegation swings 12-4 for the GOP.Republican redistricting has made a mockery of the ideal of "one man, one vote." To take back the House next year, 100 Democratic voters would have to turn out for every 94 Republicans. "Given the GOP-tilted nature of the congressional map," writes David Wasserman of the Cook Political Report, "Democrats would need to win the national popular vote by between six and seven points in order to win the barest possible House majority."Through redistricting, Republicans have succeeded in making the House more like the Senate – which the founders established as an anti-majoritarian institution to safeguard the interests of small states. At the time of the constitutional convention in 1787, the most populous state, Virginia, counted nearly 10 times the free population of Delaware. Yet both would have the same number of senators. In the more than two centuries since, America has expanded, and its population became concentrated, in ways the founders could have scarcely imagined – rendering the original 10:1 standard quaint. Today, the population of California outpaces Wyoming's by a ratio of 65:1. This extreme example underscores a nationwide trend: Half of the U.S. population now resides in just nine states. Which is to say that the other 50 percent of Americans control 82 votes in the U.S. Senate.This state of affairs would be shocking enough if the Senate were governed by majority rule. But since 2007, Republican Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has subjected the daily business of the chamber to the filibuster, which means that legislation cannot advance and a presidential nominee can't be confirmed without a supermajority of 60 votes. Republicans have used this parliamentary roadblock to stop greenhouse-gas regulations, stall the DREAM Act and delay judicial confirmations.The filibuster adds an undemocratic overlay to a chamber that is already rankly undemocratic. In today's Senate, 41 small-state Republicans can mount a filibuster on behalf of 28 percent of the country. And the departure from historical practice is shocking: LBJ faced one filibuster as Senate majority leader. Harry Reid, the current majority leader, has faced more than 430. Nearly half the filibusters of executive-branch nominations in the nation's history – 16 of 36 – have occurred under Obama.The modern filibuster has only been in place since 1917, but McConnell defends the procedure as though it were central to the creation of the republic. "The founders purposefully crafted the Senate to be a deliberate, thoughtful body," McConnell said during a 2010 hearing. "A supermajority requirement," he said, "ensures that wise purpose." In reality, the founders railed against the dangers of supermajority rule. In 1787, Alexander Hamilton warned of the "tedious delays" and "contemptible compromises of the public good" that result when "a minority can control the opinion of the majority."Republicans aren't finished in their campaign to rig the political system. The party has been seeking to carry over its built-in advantage in the House into a new edge in presidential elections. In a project with the explicit blessing of Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus, a half-dozen Republican-dominated legislatures in states that swing blue in presidential elections have advanced proposals to abandon the winner-take-all standard in the Electoral College. These states would instead apportion electoral votes by the favored candidate of each congressional district – a method currently practiced by only two, small, homogenous states, Maine and Nebraska. Thanks to the GOP's gerrymandering, such a change would all but guarantee that a Democratic presidential candidate in a big, diverse state like Michigan would lose the split of electoral votes even if he or she won in a popular landslide.<a class="inStoryLink" href="http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/inside-the-republican-suicide-machine-20131009" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: 0px 0px; background-repeat: initial;">Inside the Republican Suicide Machine</a>"You'd see a massive shift of electoral votes," a senior Republican official who backed the proposal told the National Journal, emphasizing that the change would be much less work than persuading a majority of voters to back the GOP candidate: "There's no kind of . . . outreach," the official said, "that can grab us those electoral votes that quickly." In September, a Republican lawmaker introduced a bill to implement the scheme in the biggest swing-state prize in the land, Florida. Had it been in place in each of the states that have introduced the plan – including Michigan, Ohio, Virginia, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania – Mitt Romney would be president, despite receiving 5 million fewer votes than Obama.In a true democracy, citizens could depend on the courts to overturn partisan schemes to subvert the will of the governed. But here, too, Republicans are winning. In July, a three-judge panel struck down a challenge to North Carolina's redistricting, and a federal-court challenge of the filibuster was also recently struck down.<a class="inStoryLink" href="http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-seven-most-extreme-state-laws-proposed-this-year-20130910" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: 0px 0px; background-repeat: initial;">The Seven Most Extreme State Laws Proposed This Year</a>In fact, activist judges at the highest level are abetting the GOP's efforts to disenfranchise millions of Americans of color. Since the 1960s, Southern states with a history of voter suppression have had to submit proposed changes in elections law to a review by the federal government. The 2011 redistricting map drawn by the Republican state legislature in Texas was thrown out by a three-judge federal panel because it had been "enacted with discriminatory purpose." (Texas had gained four House seats because of population growth that was 90 percent minority. In the legislature's map, three of the four new districts were gerrymandered to favor Anglo Republicans.) Federal judges also struck down Texas' voter-ID law, the most restrictive in the nation, for imposing "unforgiving burdens" on "racial minorities . . . disproportionately likely to live in poverty."But this summer, the Supreme Court not only vacated these Texas rulings, it gutted Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, ending federal "preclearance" of election law in the old Confederacy. Texas lawmakers continue to wrangle over redistricting. But the state's voter-ID law went into effect this October. Those without state-issued photo ID – gun permits are valid, college IDs are not – can seek out a special voting card, but must first pay a de facto poll tax of $22 to secure a birth certificate and then travel as far as 250 miles to apply at a state motor-vehicle office. As many as 1.4 million Texas voters are currently barred from polls because they lack the required identification. At last count, the state had issued exactly 41 special voter-ID cards.Such trickery has come to define the GOP's approach to federal elections where Republicans can no longer prevail in a fair fight. Strict voter-ID laws have now been passed in more than a dozen states, most recently North Carolina. There, a county-level Republican Party Executive Committee member named Don Yelton recently committed a gaffe of truth-telling, admitting on national television that the driving purpose of the state's voter-ID law is to "kick the Democrats in the butt." If the law disenfranchises college students without photo IDs or "hurts a bunch of lazy blacks," Yelton said, "so be it."<a class="inStoryLink" href="http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-rising-cost-of-higher-education-what-now-20130729" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: 0px 0px; background-repeat: initial;">The Rising Cost of Higher Education</a>The bad news is that the Republican death grip on our political process could get even worse. The midterm electorate tends to be older and whiter than in presidential years; no one should be shocked to see the GOP expand its advantage in the House in 2014, or even make a run at the Senate. The good news is that the future is more powerful than Republican dirty tricks. The GOP may have postponed its day of reckoning at the hands of a younger, browner, queerer electorate – "They're holding back the tides," says Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia's Center for Politics – but sooner or later, they're going to get swamped.This story is from the November 21st, 2013 issue of Rolling Stone.

Read more: <a href="http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/how-republicans-rig-the-game-20131111#ixzz3Vd8TLvvM" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: 0px 0px; background-repeat: initial;">http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/how-republicans-rig-the-game-20131111#ixzz3Vd8TLvvM</a> 
Follow us: <a href="http://ec.tynt.com/b/rw?id=bbJxak64Kr4kEzacwqm_6l&u=rollingstone" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: 0px 0px; background-repeat: initial;">@rollingstone on Twitter</a> | <a href="http://ec.tynt.com/b/rf?id=bbJxak64Kr4kEzacwqm_6l&u=RollingStone" target="_blank" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: 0px 0px; background-repeat: initial;">RollingStone on Facebook</a>

As President Barack Obama was being inaugurated, Virginia House Republicans took advantage of a momentary absence of legislators to ram through a partisan redistricting. One Democratic legislator went along with their disgusting heist–and now she’s got a primary challenger in Evandra Thompson.

Inert and Pathetic Federal Government Incapable of Transitioning to Renewable Economy
Steven Cohen | August 5, 2014 My <a href="http://www.columbia.edu/" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.2s linear; line-height: 25.2000007629395px; background: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Columbia University</a> colleagues Bill Eimicke and Alison Miller recently joined me in authoring a new book entitled <a href="http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-1118916379.html" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.2s linear; background: transparent;">Sustainability Policy: Hastening the Transition to A Cleaner Economy</a>. If all goes well, Jossey-Bass publishers will release the book in early 2015. Our work focuses on how American government at the federal, state and local levels can work with the private sector to speed up what I see as the inevitable transition to a renewable economy. While there is a lot of action at the state and local level to promote sustainability, the federal government remains inert and pathetic. At the federal level, we see an ossified executive branch that cannot build a website or manage health care for veterans, a legislative branch that has forgotten how to compromise and legislate, and a Supreme Court willing to equate money with political speech.There are several trends in American politics that lead away from democracy, moderate demands for change and inhibit building a federal government capable of working with the private sector to bring about a sustainable economy. These include unlimited <a href="http://ecowatch.com/2014/04/30/dirty-money-dirty-fuels-politics/" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.2s linear; background: transparent;">money in politics</a>, gerrymandered congressional districts and the replacement of fact-checked media with the fact-challenged media environment we now experience.We are starting to see the long-term impact of the Supreme Court’s decision to consider<a href="http://ecowatch.com/2012/09/25/purchase-elected-officials/" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.2s linear; background: transparent;">political cash donations</a> a protected form of speech. This has magnified the impact of money in politics. In turn, this puts emerging high-tech, but capital-needy, companies at a disadvantage in the competition with old, capital-rich firms attempting to influence rules governing production, finance and taxation. The increased role of money in politics tilts the economy away from creative and sustainability-oriented companies toward old-line and extractive industries such as the fossil fuel business. While the old businesses will eventually give way to the new, the enhanced impact of money in politics will slow down the process.The need for money also stimulates more moderate politicians on both the left and the right to move away from the political center—where deal making is possible—to the extremes. They need to do this to “activate the base” and win primary challenges. Money is only one of the issues here. National political groups gain media attention and attract money when they articulate extreme positions. And, as now former Rep. Eric Cantor can tell you, turnout in primaries is quite low and unpredictable, and so money is only one part of the equation. The other part is the fact-free media. Political communication has always had a strong dose of propaganda—it goes with the territory—but the weird, endless onslaught of misleading political ads and partisan commentary we see today is relentless and unavoidable. Character assassination, misrepresentation of positions and deception is now the norm as political consultants urge their candidates to “define the opposition before they define you.” Normal, rational people are avoiding electoral politics as never before.It is true that, overall, Democrats win more votes in congressional elections than Republicans, but that Republicans these days are winning more seats. Gerrymandering is part of the problem, but as Sean Trende wrote in his incisive analysis in <a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/05/16/why_the_gop_lost_the_vote_but_gained_house_seats__118430.html" target="_blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.2s linear; background: transparent;">Real Clear Politics</a>:<blockquote style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">One of the most striking aspects of the 2012 elections is that Republicans won their third-largest House majority since the late 1920s while losing the popular vote. Pundits have largely coalesced around a single explanation for this: GOP control of redistricting. There’s no doubt that the party maximized its advantage by controlling redistricting in a majority of House districts, but that wasn’t really the culprit. The Democrats’ minority status has more to do with their “new coalition,” which might be good for winning presidential elections but is ill-suited for controlling the House....http://ecowatch.com/2014/08/05/fed-government-incapable-transition-to-renewable-economy/</blockquote>

===

==

In the November election, a million more Americans <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/15/us/politics/redistricting-helped-republicans-hold-onto-congress.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0">voted</a> for Democrats seeking election to the U.S. House of Representatives than Republicans. But that popular vote advantage did not result in control of the chamber. Instead, despite getting fewer votes, Republicans have maintained a commanding control of the House. Such a disparity has happened only three times in the last century.

(<a href="http://projects.propublica.org/graphics/seats-vs-votes">Here’s a chart comparing 2010 and 2012</a>.)

</div>

Analysts and others have identified redistricting as a key to the disparity. Republicans had a <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/15/us/politics/redistricting-helped-republicans-hold-onto-congress.html?ref=reapportionment&pagewanted=all">years-long strategy of winning state houses</a> in order to control each state's once-a-decade redistricting process. (Confused about redistricting? Check out our <a href="http://www.propublica.org/article/video-the-redistricting-song">song</a>.)

Republican strategist Karl Rove laid out the approach in a Wall Street Journal <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703862704575099670689398044.html">column</a> in early 2010 headlined "He who controls redistricting can control Congress."

The approach paid off. In 2010 state races, Republicans picked up 675 legislative seats, gaining complete control of 12 state legislatures. As a result, the GOP oversaw redrawing of lines for four times as many congressional districts as Democrats.

How did they dominate redistricting? A ProPublica investigation has found that the GOP relied on opaque nonprofits funded by dark money, supposedly nonpartisan campaign outfits, and millions in corporate donations to achieve Republican-friendly maps throughout the country. Two tobacco giants, Altria and Reynolds, each <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/527s/527cmtedetail_contribs.php?cycle=2010&ein=050532524">pitched in</a> more than $1 million to the main Republican redistricting group, as did Rove's super PAC, American Crossroads; Walmart and the pharmaceutical industry also contributed. Other donors, who gave to the nonprofits Republicans created, may <a href="http://www.propublica.org/article/how-nonprofits-spend-millions-on-elections-and-call-it-public-welfare">never have to be disclosed</a>.

While many observers have <a href="http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/11/08/15001252-money-cant-buy-happiness-or-an-election?lite">noted</a> that mega-donors like Sheldon Adelson backed losing candidates, a close look at the Republicans' effort on redistricting suggests something else: The hundreds of millions spent this year on presidential TV ads may not have hit the mark, but the relatively modest sums funneled to redistricting paid off handsomely.

Where Democrats were in control, they <a href="http://www.brennancenter.org/content/resource/redistricting_and_congressional_control_following_the_2012_election/">drew gerrymandered maps</a> just like Republicans. They also had their own secretive redistricting <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/08/us/politics/08elect.html?_r=0">funding</a>. (Last year, we <a href="http://www.propublica.org/article/how-democrats-fooled-californias-redistricting-commission">detailed</a> how Democrats in California worked to undermine the state's attempt at non-partisan redistricting.) But Democrats got outspent 3-to-1 and did not prioritize winning state legislatures. They also faced a Republican surge in 2010.

Exactly how the Republican effort worked has been shrouded in mystery until now. But depositions and other documents in a little-noticed lawsuit in North Carolina offer an exceptionally detailed picture of Republicans' tactics.

Documents show that national Republican operatives, funded by dark money groups, drew the crucial lines which packed as many Democrats as possible into three congressional districts. The result: the state's congressional delegation flipped from 7-6 Democratic to 9-4 in favor of Republicans. The combination of party operatives, cash and secrecy also existed in other states, including Wisconsin, Ohio and Michigan.

Redistricting is supposed to protect the fundamental principle of one-person-one-vote. As demographics change, lines are shifted to make sure everyone is equally represented and to give communities a voice. In order for Republicans to win in North Carolina, they undermined the votes of Democrats, especially African-Americans. (Party leaders in North Carolina say they were simply complying with federal voting laws.)

The strategy began in the run-up to the 2010 elections. Republicans poured money into local races in North Carolina and elsewhere. It was an efficient approach. While congressional races routinely cost millions, a few thousand dollars can swing a campaign for a seat in the state legislature

The Republican effort to influence redistricting overall was spearheaded by a group called the Republican State Leadership Committee, which has existed since 2002. For most of that time, it was primarily a vehicle for donors like health care and tobacco companies to influence state legislatures, key battlegrounds for regulations that affect corporate America. Its focus changed in 2010 when Ed Gillespie, former counselor to President George W. Bush, was named chairman. His main project: redistricting.

Soon after Gillespie took over, the RSLC announced an effort to influence state races throughout the country, the Redistricting Majority Project, or <a href="http://www.redistrictingmajorityproject.com/?page_id=2">REDMAP</a>. Fundraising soared. The group raised $30 million in 2010, by far its best year. (Its Democratic counterpart raised roughly $10 million.)

The RSLC is organized as a type of political group that can take in unlimited corporate donations. It must disclose its contributors. But that doesn't mean it's always possible to trace the origins of the money.

Along with Walmart and tobacco companies, the RSLC's largest funders in 2010 were the Chamber of Commerce and <a href="http://americanjusticepartnership.com/about.php">American Justice Partnership</a>, which gave a combined $6.5 million. Those two groups raise money from corporations and others but don't have to disclose their donors.

As the 2010 North Carolina legislative elections heated up, the RSLC jumped into local races. But the way they made contributions kept their involvement away from the attention of state voters. Rather than running campaign ads under its own name, the RSLC distributed money to a newly formed local nonprofit. The RSLC declined to comment.

The RSLC gave $1.25 million to its vehicle of choice <a href="http://realjobsnc.com">Real Jobs NC</a>. The group <a href="http://realjobsnc.com/about/">calls itself</a> a "non-partisan organization that believes we need to return to a reliance on the free enterprise system that made our country great for real answers." It was started in 2010 and got a hefty $200,000 boost from dollar store magnate and Republican supporter Art Pope, although Pope denies his donation was related to redistricting or REDMAP.

Real Jobs NC produced ads and mailers slamming more than 20 state Democrats.

"Steve Goss … nice guy," intoned the voiceover in <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8t03K9nleo">one such ad</a> in North Carolina, attacking then-Democratic State Senator Goss. "Too bad he's voting with the Raleigh liberals over hometown conservatives."

Goss lost, and Democrats lost control of North Carolina's General Assembly for the first time in a century. The pattern repeated itself across the country.

"Twenty legislative bodies which were previously split or under Democratic control are now under Republican control," said a triumphant RSLC REDMAP post-election <a href="http://www.redistrictingmajorityproject.com/?p=638">analysis</a>, highlighting its spending in Wisconsin, Ohio, Pennsylvania and North Carolina, among other states.

The next step for Republicans was to draw district maps, which can be expensive. The maps require expertise, extensive data and sophisticated software. Skillful map drawers can make even the most partisan gerrymander look reasonable.

To fund the work, the Republican State Leadership Committee used its previously dormant nonprofit arm, the State Government Leadership Foundation. Such dark money groups are <a href="http://www.propublica.org/article/how-nonprofits-spend-millions-on-elections-and-call-it-public-welfare">increasingly popular</a> because they are allowed to keep secret the identity of their donors. Federal tax law permits them to do this as long as they pledge that politics is not their primary focus.

<a href="http://www.propublica.org/documents/item/537961-state-leadership-government-foundation-2011-990#document/p1">Flush</a> with anonymous donors' cash, the Foundation <a href="http://www.propublica.org/documents/item/537961-state-leadership-government-foundation-2011-990#document/p8">paid</a> $166,000 to <a href="http://rslc.com/_blog/RedMap/post/Presidents_Welcome/">hire</a> the GOP's pre-eminent redistricting experts, according to tax documents. The team leader was <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/10/the-league-of/309084/">Tom Hofeller</a>, architect of Republican-friendly maps going back decades.

"Our team would be happy to assist in drawing proposed maps, interpreting data, or providing advice," wrote Chris Jankowski, the head of both the RSLC and State Government Leadership Foundation, in a <a href="http://www.propublica.org/documents/item/537408-hofeller-sglf-rslc-letter"> </a> of introduction to North Carolina legislators. The letter was disclosed as part of the North Carolina lawsuit.

"We are engaged in a number of states and believe we are playing a meaningful role in helping draw fair and legal lines that will allow us to run competitive elections in 2012 and in future cycles," Jankowski added.

The same letter emphasized that the Republican redistricting push was being funded through its dark money nonprofit: "The entirety of this effort will be paid for using non-federal dollars through our 501c(4) organization."

Jankowski, representing both the RSLC and the Foundation, declined to comment.

Because Hofeller's team was paid with dark money and the redistricting process is so secretive, it is hard to know the full extent of its activities. In Wisconsin, the team provided <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/539678-dep-of-andrew-speth-dkt-143-11cv562">technical assistance</a> to an aide to Rep. Paul Ryan as he drew new districts that <a href="http://www.thedailypage.com/daily/article.php?article=38333">favored Republicans</a>. In Missouri, Hofeller was the <a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/news/ap/politics/2012/Feb/01/gop_redistricting_expert_says_mo__map_is_compact.html">sole witness</a> called by attorneys representing the Republican legislators who drew the maps there.

In the case of North Carolina, Hofeller made his <a href="http://www.propublica.org/documents/item/537517-naacp-431#document/p1">first trip</a> to Raleigh on Feb. 1, 2011, even <a href="http://2010.census.gov/news/releases/operations/cb11-cn61.html">before</a> final state Census data had been released, the first of 10 trips that year.

From then on, two parallel redistricting processes unfolded in the state.

Through the spring and summer, legislators in charge of redistricting traveled the state holding public meetings at local colleges, soliciting comment and proposed maps from citizens — though the Republicans on the committee would not produce draft maps themselves.

"We are not here to answer questions. We are not here drawing maps," state Senate redistricting committee chairman Bob Rucho <a href="http://www.indyweek.com/indyweek/redistricting-without-a-map/Content?oid=2426024">told the crowd</a> at a hearing in Durham. "What we are here for is to basically hear your thoughts and dreams about redistricting."

But that input had little influence on the districts that were eventually drawn.

Instead, the real maps were being produced behind the scenes by a team that based its operations at Republican Party <a href="https://maps.google.com/maps?q=1506+Hillsborough+St.,+Raleigh,&ll=35.784112,-78.657432&spn=0.0094,0.013819&sll=35.784636,-78.658077&layer=c&cbp=13,24.8,,0,3.79&cbll=35.784338,-78.658211&gl=us&hnear=1506+Hillsborough+St,+Raleigh,+Wake,+North+Carolina+27605">headquarters</a> on Hillsborough Street in Raleigh. Armed with advanced <a href="http://www.caliper.com/maptovu.htm">mapping software</a>, Hofeller and others crafted districts that would virtually guarantee big gains for the party.

Hofeller did not attend or read transcripts of any of the public meetings, according to his deposition. Hofeller did not respond to requests for comment.

A mysterious state dark money nonprofit that <a href="http://www.propublica.org/documents/item/537894-fair-and-legal-redistricting-incorporation-doc">sprung up</a> just in time for the process, called Fair and Legal Redistricting for North Carolina, <a href="http://www.propublica.org/documents/item/537152-exhibit-8-raupe-transcript-6-18-12#document/p28">hired</a> a technician to operate the mapping workstation day-to-day, and <a href="http://www.propublica.org/documents/item/537148-exhibit-4-deposition-rucho-transcript-5-4-12#document/p29">another Republican mapping expert</a>. The group did not respond to our requests for comment.

State-based nonprofits have been a vehicle for Republicans to funnel anonymous money into their map-drawing operations in a number of states, including self-proclaimed nonpartisan groups in <a href="http://www.michiganredistrictingresourceinstitute.com/">Michigan</a> and <a href="http://minnesotaindependent.com/88645/undisclosed-money-flows-into-minnesotas-redistricting-process">Minnesota</a>.

Republican state legislators tasked with redistricting frequently visited and consulted with the mapping team, according to depositions. Even Art Pope, the <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/10/10/111010fa_fact_mayer?currentPage=all">most influential</a> conservative donor in the state, was appointed "<a href="http://www.propublica.org/documents/item/537149-exhibit-5-deposition-oldham-transcript-6-27-12#document/p126">co-counsel</a>" to the legislative leadership and allowed in the room to give direct instructions to the technician.

"We worked together at the workstation," <a href="http://www.propublica.org/documents/item/537152-exhibit-8-raupe-transcript-6-18-12#document/p42">said</a> Joel Raupe, the technical expert paid by Fair and Legal Redistricting, in a deposition. "He sat next to me."

Pope, who is a lawyer but does not actively practice, was made co-counsel to the state legislature, offering his services <a href="http://www.propublica.org/documents/item/540997-farr-response-to-newby-recusal-motion#document/p12">pro bono</a>. Now, because he was technically a legal adviser to the state, he says any information about his involvement in the redistricting is privileged.

(The New Yorker had a <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/10/10/111010fa_fact_mayer?currentPage=all">sweeping profile</a> of Pope last year, detailing how he has used his fortune to dominate North Carolina politics.)

North Carolina's Republican incumbents in Congress pushed for a so-called "<a href="http://www.propublica.org/documents/item/537525-naacp-447#document/p1/a84871">10-3 map</a>," the majority they hoped to win in the state's delegation.

Hofeller, the mapping expert, delivered. His maps kept most of the districts from being competitive — or even remotely winnable — for Democratic candidates.

A key part of the redistricting strategy was to push minority voters into three districts. Republicans <a href="http://propublica.org/documents/item/539914-joint-statement-by-senator-bob-rucho-and">insisted</a> their maps were "fair and legal," necessary to conform to <a href="http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/vot/intro/intro_b.php">laws</a> protecting minority voting rights, although according to a well-known voting rights attorney, the opposite is true.

But federal voting rights law "doesn't require a jurisdiction to pack blacks in districts," said Laughlin McDonald, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Voting Rights Project. "If you tried to pack minority voters into a district, that would arguably be a violation."

In two of those districts, African-American incumbents been already been winning by large margins for years. Republicans' maps added yet more African-Americans to the districts, what's known in redistricting parlance as "<a href="http://www.propublica.org/article/redistricting-a-devils-dictionary">packing</a>." As Hofeller wrote in an email about one of the districts, the plan was to "incorporate all the significant concentrations of minority voters in the northeast into the first district."

A third district was 120-mile long, and sea monkey-shaped, connecting pockets of African-Americans from three different, distant cities. Republicans justified it on the basis of a common media market.

The maps were designed to "segregate African-American voters in three districts and concede those districts to the Democrats," says Bob Hall of <a href="http://www.democracy-nc.org/about-us/">Democracy North Carolina</a>, a nonpartisan public interest group that joined the lawsuit against the new maps.

In 2012, Democrats won the three districts by more than 70 percent of the vote. Another effect: the surrounding districts were much more Republican.

Rucho and other Republican legislators had presented the maps as <a href="http://www.propublica.org/documents/item/539914-joint-statement-by-senator-bob-rucho-and#document/p8">advantageous</a> to Democrats. Indeed, registered Democrats actually outnumbered registered Republicans in seven additional districts beyond those that were clearly slated to be Democratic.

<a href="http://www.propublica.org/documents/item/537529-naacp-460">Emails</a> show Republicans decided to make that fact a major talking point.

But the stat was misleading, as the Republicans' own data indicates. An internal analysis of one of Hofeller's later drafts (code name "Blue Horizon 3") obtained by ProPublica shows that those seven allegedly "competitive" districts would have been landslide wins for John McCain in 2008, and for Republican Senator Richard Burr in 2010.

The carefully drawn maps <a href="http://www.politico.com/2012-election/map/#/House/2012/NC">worked</a>. In this year's elections, Democratic candidates for the U.S. House of Representatives in North Carolina won 50.6 percent of the total vote. But the state's House delegation now has nine Republicans and just four Democrats. One of the Democrats won by just a few hundred voters, despite the fact that his newly drawn district skewed heavily Republican and that his own home had been drawn out of it. North Carolina's <a href="http://www.rollcall.com/issues/57_21/Race-Ratings-GOP-Looks-for-Major-Gains-North-Carolina-208044-1.html">delegation</a> before the election had seven Democrats and six Republicans

In addition to his pay from national Republican groups, invoices show Hofeller <a href="http://www.propublica.org/documents/item/537518-naacp-432">billed</a> North Carolina taxpayers $77,000 for his services.

The Republican maps are still under threat by suits filed by Democrats and the NAACP. The lawsuits are headed to the state Supreme Court. But a flood of contributions tied to the RSLC have lowered the risk of the maps' being overturned.

While judicial elections in North Carolina are nominally nonpartisan, it was <a href="http://www2.nbc17.com/news/2012/jul/29/political-balance-stake-nc-supreme-court-race-ar-2473469/">common knowledge</a> that Republicans held a 4-3 majority on the court. One of those Republican incumbents was facing a tough challenge in 2012, potentially throwing the whole redistricting result in jeopardy.

Justice Paul Newby was running for re-election against appellate judge Sam Ervin IV, grandson of the famous North Carolina senator who investigated Watergate. With a few weeks left until the November election, Newby was trailing Ervin.

But then, in the final stretch, Newby was the beneficiary of a flood of late spending that can be traced back to the Republican State Leadership Committee.

Once again the contributions were funneled through homegrown groups. With only a few weeks to go, the RSLC gave more than $1.1 million to a group called Justice for All NC. Campaign finance filings show Justice for All NC in turn gave nearly $1.5 million to a super PAC running pro-Newby ads, the NC Judicial Coalition.

Most of the money spent by the super PAC went to pay for <a href="http://www.wcnc.com/decision2012/TV-ad-in-NC-Supreme-Court-Race-brought-to-you-by-murky-super-PAC-175488831.html">hundreds</a> of airings of a <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sumn4Hc9OvM">jingle ad</a> featuring lines like, "Paul Newby / Justice tough but fair / Paul Newby / Criminals best beware" set to infectious banjo music.

The spending didn't end there: and Pope's fingerprints were also on the race. Two dark money groups affiliated with Pope — the state-based <a href="http://www.civitasaction.org/">Civitas Action</a> and <a href="http://americansforprosperity.org/about/directors/">Americans for Prosperity</a> — spent another $300,000 on radio ads and mailers supporting Newby. Pope's company also gave to the RSLC in the run-up to this fall's elections.

Pope says he gave money to Americans for Prosperity for years before the judicial race even came up, and that he was not involved in the decision to run pro-Newby ads.

"I'm Republican, I support Republican groups," Pope said. "But just because you support something doesn't mean you're responsible for all they do."

It was an unusually large amount of outside spending for a judicial race. The outside pro-Newby groups had <a href="http://www.telegram.com/article/20121101/APN/311019774">spent more</a> on the race than the two campaigns combined.

In the end, Newby eked out a 52-48 victory, preserving the court's Republican majority.

When the groups contesting the maps called for Newby to recuse himself from redistricting litigation, lawyers for Republican legislators <a href="http://www.propublica.org/documents/item/540997-farr-response-to-newby-recusal-motion#document/p6">argued</a> that because the campaign ads were paid for by "independent" groups, they did not jeopardize Newby's impartiality.

On Monday, the state Supreme Court rejected the motion for Newby to recuse himself.

"I've got no control over who contributes to an ad. I have no control over who endorses me," Newby — who did not respond to a request for comment — <a href="http://www.wcnc.com/decision2012/SuperPACs-spend-millions-for-Republican-in-NC-Supreme-Court-176496161.html">told</a> a local TV station on the eve of the election. "You've got to put your blinders on like lady justice."

</div>

==

===

<a href="http://www.prwatch.org/node/12070">http://www.prwatch.org/node/12070</a>

<h1 class="print-title">Creatures of the Dark: Wisconsin GOP Caught Deleting Records, Again</h1>

<div class="meta">by <a href="http://www.prwatch.org/users/35275/brendan-fischer" title="View user profile.">Brendan Fischer</a> [1] — April 23, 2013 - 7:13am</div>

<ul>

<li class="vocabulary-2">Topics: <a href="http://www.prwatch.org/topics/democracy">Democracy</a> [2], <a href="http://www.prwatch.org/topics/politics">Politics</a> [3]</li>

</ul>

</div>

<ul>

<li class="vocabulary-9">Projects: <a href="http://www.prwatch.org/projects/alec-exposed">ALEC Exposed</a> [4], <a href="http://www.prwatch.org/projects/wisconsin-protests">Wisconsin Protests</a> [5]</li>

</ul>

</div>

<div class="content clearfix"><a class="da2a_button" href="http://www.addtoany.com/share_save?linkurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.prwatch.org%2Fnews%2F2013%2F04%2F12070%2Fcreatures-dark-wisconsin-gop-caught-deleting-records-again&linkname=Creatures%20of%20the%20Dark%3A%20Wisconsin%20GOP%20Caught%20Deleting%20Records%2C%20Again" id="da2a_1"><img src="/8b6eef0c-d892-5fac-bacc-6535fd6ad5a7.png"/> Share this</a> [6]

New federal court filings allege that hundreds of thousands of Republican redistricting files in Wisconsin were deleted last year, in defiance of court orders to turn over all documents. The deletions fit into a pattern of the Wisconsin GOP covering their tracks and could result in sanctions for the attorneys or individuals involved in deleting the files.

Wisconsin Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald

In January 2012, after the three-judge federal panel hearing a Democratic challenge to the redistricting maps ordered Republicans to produce all redistricting-related records, someone with the user name of an aide to Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald logged-on to GOP computers and deleted files and folders. In July, just after Democrats took control of the state senate and asked for the entire redistricting folder, another Fitzgerald aide's login was used to delete hundreds of thousands of records.

Though the legal challenge to the redistricting maps was resolved over a year ago, mounting evidence of deleted files and possible misrepresentation by Republicans and their attorneys led the court to order a forensic analysis of the computers to recover deletions and assess the level of wrongdoing.

The entire redistricting process has been marked by an unprecedented level of secrecy. And the stakes are high for the Republican legislature's law firm, Michael Best & Friedrich, whose lawyers have been sharply criticized by the court for their handling of the case. Republican National Committee Chair Reince Priebus <a href="http://www.michaelbest.com/rrpriebus/" target="_blank">is a partner</a> [9] at the Wisconsin-based firm, though he is currently on leave while he leads the RNC.

<h2>"Shameful" and "Needlessly Secret" Redistricting Kept Public in Dark</h2>

With Republicans in charge of the Assembly, Senate, and Governor's mansion after the 2010 election, they had the legislative majority to <a href="http://www.prwatch.org/news/2013/02/11968/wisconsins-shameful-gerrymander-2012" target="blank">gerrymander congressional maps</a> [10] to their party's benefit, and did so in the offices of Michael Best & Friedrich, apparently to try and keep the process protected under attorney-client privilege. The maps were promptly challenged by immigrant rights group Voces de la Frontera, and the federal court hearing the case <a href="http://www.prwatch.org/news/2013/02/11968/wisconsins-shameful-gerrymander-2012" target="blank">sharply criticized</a> [10] Republican lawmakers for conducting redistricting under a veil of secrecy and shutting the public out of the process, calling it "shameful," "sharply partisan," and "needlessly secret."

In December 2011, the court demanded that Republicans turn over nearly all documents related to redistricting, but the GOP and their lawyers at Michael Best & Friedrich continued working to keep the material confidential -- leading the court to fine the attorneys $17,500 in fees for filing frivolous motions.

As the federal court ruled on Wisconsin's maps in February of 2012, the Center for Media and Democracy (publishers of PRwatch.org) <a href="http://www.prwatch.org/news/2012/02/11321/shameful-wi-redistricting-awaits-final-ruling" target="blank">revealed</a> [11] that the <a href="http://www.ALECexposed.org" target="blank">American Legislative Exchange Council</a> [12] (ALEC) had <a href="http://www.prwatch.org/news/2012/02/11321/shameful-wi-redistricting-awaits-final-ruling" target="blank">invited</a> [11] legislators to <a href="http://www.prwatch.org/files/redistricting.jpg" target="blank">redistricting conference calls</a> [13], based on <a href="http://www.prwatch.org/news/2012/02/11321/shameful-wi-redistricting-awaits-final-ruling" target="_blank">emails </a>[11] obtained through earlier open records requests to Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald.

The emails CMD obtained were not released to the lawyers challenging the maps. But they should have been. This failure to release all redistricting-related documents <a href="http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/documents-in-redistricting-case-withheld-plaintiff-says-4p4lo26-143543706.html" target="_blank">opened a new round</a> [14] of legal wrangling, with the court questioning what other documents Republican legislators and their lawyers had kept secret. Additional documents that should have been produced were found when Democrats took control of the state senate after the July 2012 recall elections and obtained access to the Republican redistricting file.

In February of 2013, the Court <a href="http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/federal-panel-opens-gop-computers-in-wisconsin-redistricting-case-mv8u03q-193105171.html" target="_blank">ordered Republicans</a> [15] to turn over computers used in redistricting for expert forensic analysis, because judges found that "fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct" likely occurred.

According to the April 18 <a href="http://www.wispolitics.com/1006/large/130418Redist.pdf" target="blank">court</a> [7] <a href="http://www.wispolitics.com/1006/large/130418Redist2.pdf" target="blank">filings</a> [8], the analysis so far indicates files were deleted on at least two separate occasions: on January 6, "just after the Court’s order [to turn over the documents] and just before the legislature’s supplemental production," and on July 25, which was one week "after majority control of the state senate shifted [and] the new majority leader requested Michael Best’s redistricting file," and one week before "Michael Best turned over its redistricting file to the new senate majority leader."

In other contexts, <a href="http://wisfoic.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=241:september-lawmakers-exploit-loophole-to-hide-alec-ties-&catid=57:2012-columns&Itemid=95" target="blank">CMD has encountered patterns</a> [16] of Republican legislators deleting files, thanks to a loophole in the state open records law exempting legislators from records retention rules that apply to all other government officials. Sen. Fitzgerald -- whose office is at the center of the redistricting litigation -- in the past had released hundreds of documents in response to requests for ALEC-related records, but is now <a href="http://www.prwatch.org/files/Fitzgerald_response.pdf" target="blank">issuing replies like this one</a> [17] to a records request for ALEC communications: "If we did receive materials (from ALEC), either electronically or via mail, those materials were discarded upon receipt."

<h2>Taxpayer Costs of Defending Secrecy Continue to Rise</h2>

Recent court filings show that over $100,000 has been spent on the initial stages of the forensic analysis, largely because of the complexity of reconstructing deleted files. Wiping software that could have been used to remove electronic data and hide deleted files had been installed on some hard drives, further complicating the reconstruction. <a href="http://www.wispolitics.com/1006/large/130418Redist.pdf" target="_blank">According to the court filings</a> [7], two-thirds of the costs moving forward will be incurred in locating and reconstructing the deleted files. "Had data not been deleted, the investigation could proceed at a fraction of the cost," the filings state.

Plaintiffs are seeking to have the legislature -- or its attorneys -- cover the cost of the examination before continuing.

So far, taxpayers have been on the hook for at least $2 million in legal fees to defend the GOP's "shameful" redistricting effort, and costs will likely continue to rise.

</div>

<div class="print-footer">Center for Media and Democracy • 520 University Avenue, Suite 260 • Madison, Wisconsin 53703

Phone: 608-260-9713 • Fax: 608-260-9714</div>

<div class="print-source_url">Source URL: <a href="http://www.prwatch.org/news/2013/04/12070/creatures-dark-wisconsin-gop-caught-deleting-records-again">http://www.prwatch.org/news/2013/04/12070/creatures-dark-wisconsin-gop-caught-deleting-records-again</a></div>

Links:

[1] http://www.prwatch.org/users/35275/brendan-fischer

[2] http://www.prwatch.org/topics/democracy

[3] http://www.prwatch.org/topics/politics

[4] http://www.prwatch.org/projects/alec-exposed

[5] http://www.prwatch.org/projects/wisconsin-protests

[6] http://www.addtoany.com/share_save?linkurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.prwatch.org%2Fnews%2F2013%2F04%2F12070%2Fcreatures-dark-wisconsin-gop-caught-deleting-records-again&linkname=Creatures%20of%20the%20Dark%3A%20Wisconsin%20GOP%20Caught%20Deleting%20Records%2C%20Again

[7] http://www.wispolitics.com/1006/large/130418Redist.pdf

[8] http://www.wispolitics.com/1006/large/130418Redist2.pdf

[9] http://www.michaelbest.com/rrpriebus/

[10] http://www.prwatch.org/news/2013/02/11968/wisconsins-shameful-gerrymander-2012

[11] http://www.prwatch.org/news/2012/02/11321/shameful-wi-redistricting-awaits-final-ruling

[12] http://www.ALECexposed.org

[13] http://www.prwatch.org/files/redistricting.jpg

[14] http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/documents-in-redistricting-case-withheld-plaintiff-says-4p4lo26-143543706.html

[15] http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/federal-panel-opens-gop-computers-in-wisconsin-redistricting-case-mv8u03q-193105171.html

[16] http://wisfoic.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=241:september-lawmakers-exploit-loophole-to-hide-alec-ties-&catid=57:2012-columns&Itemid=95

[17] http://www.prwatch.org/files/Fitzgerald_response.pdf