State Legislatures

Subterms

    More stories

    • 100 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Texas Passes Bills Targeting Elections in Democratic Stronghold

      by

      The bills’ passage was the culmination of a Republican effort to increase oversight of voting in Harris County, which includes Houston.The LatestThe Texas Legislature gave final approval on Sunday to a new round of voting bills to increase penalties for illegal voting and expand state oversight of local elections specifically in Harris County, which includes Houston, where Democrats have become dominant.The measures, which now head to Gov. Greg Abbott to sign, include a bill that would upend elections in Houston a few months before the city’s mayoral race in November by forcing the county to change how it runs elections and return to a previous system.That bill, known as Senate Bill 1750, was crafted so that it applies only to Harris County. So was another bill, Senate Bill 1933, that would give broad new powers to the secretary of state, appointed by the governor, to direct how elections are run in the county if there are complaints and to petition a court to replace the top election officials when deemed necessary.Election workers organized paperwork from each polling location at NRG Arena in Houston, Texas, in November.Annie Mulligan for The New York TimesWhy It Matters: Harris County could tilt the power balance in Texas.Harris County, the state’s most populous county, has become a reliable Democratic stronghold.The passage of the bills marked the culmination of a monthslong effort by Texas Republicans to contest some of that dominance. They highlighted Election Day problems last November in Harris County as justification for challenging results that favored Democrats and call into question the way the Democratic-led county runs its elections.“It was a stated intention of some of the folks in the Legislature to take action against Harris County election administration,” said Daniel Griffith, the senior policy director at Secure Democracy USA, a nonpartisan organization focused on elections and voter access.Senate Bill 1750 eliminates the appointed position of elections administrator, which has been in place in Harris County only since late 2020. If the bill becomes law with the governor’s signature, the county must return to its previous system of running elections, in which the county clerk and the county tax collector-assessor split responsibilities. Both positions are currently occupied by elected Democrats.“The Legislature’s support for S.B. 1750 and S.B. 1933 is because Harris County is not too big to fail, but too big to ignore,” State Senator Paul Bettencourt, a Houston Republican and sponsor of several election bills, said in a statement. “The public’s trust in elections in Harris County must be restored.”Another bill, Senate Bill 1070, removes Texas from an interstate system for crosschecking voter registration information run by a nonprofit, the Electronic Registration Information Center, or ERIC. The system has been the target of conservative attacks in several states in part because it requires states using it to also conduct voter outreach when new voters move in from out of state. The Texas measure bars the state from entering into any crosschecking system that requires voter outreach.Yet another bill, House Bill 1243, increases the penalty for illegal voting from a misdemeanor to a felony.The measures that passed were opposed by Democratic representatives and voting rights groups. But advocates of greater access to the polls were relieved that other, more restrictive measures put forward and passed in the State Senate — including one that would have required voters to use their assigned polling place instead of being able to vote anywhere in the county, and another that would have created a system for the state to order new elections under certain circumstances in Harris County — failed in the Texas House.“Those haven’t moved and that’s definitely a good thing,” Mr. Griffith said.What’s Next: a lawsuit and a microscope on upcoming elections.The bills invite new scrutiny of elections, especially in Harris County, where officials would be expected to revamp their system just months before important elections.Under the new legislation, future complaints about the functioning of elections in the Democratic-run county could create the real possibility that the secretary of state, a former Republican state senator, could step in and oversee elections as early as next year, as the county votes for president.The bills, said Mayor Sylvester Turner of Houston, “create more problems than they allegedly solve.”Top officials in Harris County have vowed to go to court to challenge both measures aimed at the county once the laws go into effect (Sept. 1, if the governor signs), meaning the fight over elections in the county remains far from over. More

    • 100 Shares109 Views

      in Elections

      Gloria Molina, Pioneering Latina Politician, Dies at 74

      by

      In three elections, she was a “first,” becoming one of the leading Latina politicians in California and the country.Gloria Molina, a groundbreaking Chicana politician at the city, county and state levels in California who was a fierce advocate for the communities she represented, even though that often meant defying entrenched political structures, died on May 14 at her home in the Mount Washington neighborhood of Los Angeles. She was 74.Her family announced her death, from cancer, on her Facebook page.Since she announced she had terminal cancer in March, colleagues, constituents and the California news media had been praising her achievements in articles and on social media. The Los Angeles Metro’s board of directors voted to name a train station in East Los Angeles after her. Casa 0101, a performing arts organization in the Boyle Heights section of Los Angeles, designated its main stage theater as the Gloria Molina Auditorium. Grand Park, in downtown Los Angeles, which she helped bring into being in 2012, is now Gloria Molina Grand Park.“She championed for years to increase access to parks and green spaces,” the park’s overseeing body said in announcing the renaming, “as well as recreational opportunities that engage culture, support well-being and improve the quality of life for everyone in Los Angeles.”The accolades reflected her legacy as one of the leading Latina politicians in the country, with much of her more than three-decade career encompassing a time when few Latinas were in important positions.In 1982, after working on other politicians’ campaigns, including that of Assemblywoman Maxine Waters, who would later be elected to Congress, Ms. Molina became the first Latina elected to the California Assembly. She ran for that seat even though the political leadership of the Eastside area of Los Angeles County had already selected another candidate, Richard Polanco. She beat him in the Democratic primary and easily defeated a Republican opponent in the general election.A similar thing happened in 1987 when she ran for a seat on the Los Angeles City Council that had been created by redistricting. The political leadership had chosen Larry Gonzalez for the post, but she beat him and a third candidate to become the first Latina council member.Ms. Molina in 1984 campaigning with Walter Mondale, center, who was running for president, and Art Torres, a California state senator.Wally Fong/Associated PressIn 1991, she scored a political hat trick of sorts, becoming the first woman to be elected to the powerful Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors. (In 1979, Yvonne Brathwaite Burke became the first woman on the board when she was appointed to fill out the term of a retiring member.) Some 1,000 supporters attended her swearing in.“We must look forward to a time when a person’s ethnic background or gender is no longer a historical footnote,” Ms. Molina said at the time. “And this election is another step in that positive path to the American promise.”Ms. Molina, who served on the board until term limits ended her tenure in 2014, was right that her victory was no token; today, all five supervisors are women.Roz Wyman, a groundbreaker herself — in 1953, at 22, she became the youngest person ever elected to the Los Angeles City Council — once reflected on Ms. Molina’s “firsts.”“We had a saying in those days: ‘Can a woman break the glass ceiling?’” she said. “Not only did she break it, she busted it in every way that you could possibly bust a glass ceiling.”Gloria Molina was born on May 31, 1948, in Montebello, a Los Angeles suburb. Her father, Leonardo, was a construction worker who was born in Los Angeles but raised in Casas Grandes, Mexico, and her mother, Concepción, was a homemaker from Mexico. The couple immigrated in the 1940s, and Gloria was the oldest of 10 children.“She was almost like a second mom in the family,” Ms. Molina’s daughter, Valentina Martinez, said in a video about her mother made in 2020 for the Mexican-American Cultural Education Foundation. “She did everything. She would tell me that she would come home from school every day and make tortillas for her brothers and sisters. She didn’t get to have fun or go to after-school programs. She was always kind of doing the hard work, making sure everyone was taken care of, changing diapers, cooking, doing all of that. So she was a tough lady from the very beginning.”She was, Ms. Molina said, “brought up in a very traditionally Chicano family.”“The expectations were that you were going to get married and have children,” she said in an oral history recorded in 1990 for the Online Archive of California. “You weren’t going to go on to be anything other than maybe what your mom was.”But she told her mother that she didn’t want to get married young; she wanted to travel and work and get her own place.“She thought I was sort of nuts,” Ms. Molina said.She studied fashion design at Rio Hondo College, in Whittier, Calif., and took courses at East Los Angeles College and California State University, Los Angeles, though she did not get a degree because for most of that period she was also working full time to support herself, including as a legal secretary for five years. She joined in the student activism of the 1960s and early ’70s, demonstrating against the Vietnam War and for Chicano rights.One thing she realized, she said in the Cultural Education Foundation video, was that those activism movements were generally led by men and “really didn’t allow the women to have any role whatsoever.” She banded with other Chicana women try to change that culture.“We were Chicana feminists when there weren’t any around,” she said.She was drawn into politics, working for several prominent figures and, in 1982, deciding to seek the assembly seat over the objections of the male political hierarchy. She and her Chicana supporters knew it would be a difficult battle.“We wanted to destroy everything that they had said I could not do,” she recalled in the oral history. “Like I said, we always accepted the fact that we needed to work twice as hard; we really physically went out and did that.”In her career in the State Assembly, she told The Los Angeles Times in 1987, she prided herself on “being a fighter, one who doesn’t just go along with the program because that’s how the pressure is being applied.” That was certainly true for her signature issue during her assembly years — her opposition to a proposal to build a prison in her Eastside district, a plan whose proponents included Gov. George Deukmejian.She won that battle, a significant one.“She stopped the 100-year pattern of dumping negative land-use developments on the Eastside,” Fernando Guerra, the director of the Center for the Study of Los Angeles at Loyola Marymount University, said in a phone interview.In the process, she earned a reputation for being tough and uncompromising that stuck with her throughout her political career.“Just listen to her talk,” Sergio Munoz, then the executive editor of the Spanish language daily La Opinion, told The New York Times in 1991, shortly after Ms. Molina won election to the Board of Supervisors. “Listen to her answer questions. You are going to get a direct answer, whether it affects other interests or compromises someone else.”Ms. Molina’s last elected position was on the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, where she served for more than two decades.Reed Saxon/Associated PressAfter leaving the Board of Supervisors, Ms. Molina made one more bid for political office, challenging José Huizar, an incumbent, for his Los Angeles City Council seat in 2015. She lost. Mr. Huizar later pleaded guilty to corruption charges.Though no longer in office, Ms. Molina remained active in various causes. In 2018, she was among a group protesting outside an Academy Awards luncheon in Beverly Hills, denouncing the scarcity of Hispanic characters in films.“The movie industry should be ashamed of itself,” she said then.In addition to her daughter, Ms. Molina is survived by her husband, Ron Martinez; her siblings, Gracie Molina, Irma Molina, Domingo Molina, Bertha Molina Mejia, Mario Molina, Sergio Molina, Danny Molina, Olga Molina Palacios and Lisa Molina Banuelos; and a grandson.Professor Guerra noted that Ms. Molina, in her various elections, faced the task of convincing voters to choose her over another Latino candidate.“What she had to show was, of the other Latinos that were running, she was the one who was going to represent them better,” he said. “Her secret sauce was that she came across as incredibly authentic, and she was a populist.”“Her only interest, and it came across,” he added, “was the community.” More

    • 113 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Texas Republicans Push New Voting Restrictions Aimed at Houston

      by

      The bills propose limits on polling places, tougher penalties for illegal voting and a way for the Republican-led state to order new elections in its largest city.HOUSTON — Across Harris County, an emerging Democratic stronghold in reliably red Texas, roadside signs posted last November urged harried drivers to vote Republican. A celebrity furniture salesman, beloved by many Houstonians, cut ads with the Republican candidate for the top county administrator’s post.The 2022 races for local judges and county leaders were among the hardest fought and most expensive yet seen in the sprawling county of 4.8 million, which includes Houston, as Republicans looked to capitalize on crime concerns to make headway in the state’s largest urban area.But they fell short.Now, the county is in the cross hairs of the Republican-dominated state Legislature, which is trying to exert more control over voting there. Lawmakers are pushing dozens of new election bills, including limits on polling places, felony penalties for illegal voting and a mechanism for the state to order new elections when voting problems occur in Texas counties with more than 2.7 million people, a category that includes only Harris County.At the same time, more than a dozen election challenges have been filed by losing Republican candidates in the county who have argued that significant problems at a limited number of polling places on Election Day, including insufficient supplies of ballot paper, were enough change the outcomes of races. While local leaders acknowledge issues, evidence has not been presented that they affected the results.Still, the two-front fight, both in the courts and in the State Capitol, highlighted just how important it is for Republicans to keep Harris County in play and not let it become another strongly blue urban center along the lines of Austin or Dallas. As recently as 2014, the party controlled the county, whose Republican top official was re-elected in a landslide. But it has been moving left ever since.“I tell people, we could be the reason we lose Texas, just because of our size,” said Cindy Siegel, the chair of the county Republican Party, sitting in her office under a painting of George W. Bush with smoke rising from Lower Manhattan after Sept. 11, 2001.“We’re the wall,” she added. “And they say, so goes Texas, so goes the country. So Harris County is the battleground.”Harris County, an area larger than the state of Rhode Island, includes the reliably Democratic city of Houston.Tamir Kalifa for The New York TimesThe election bills aimed at the county are part of a broad effort by Republican state leaders to increase their control over Texas’ Democratic-run urban areas. They include bills prohibiting local governments from adopting certain local ordinances, including over worker pay or hours, and allowing for the removal of elected local prosecutors who refuse to enforce certain laws, such as those banning abortion. The approach mirrors those in other red states with large blue cities, such as Tennessee and Florida.Republican lawmakers in Texas passed an overhaul of election rules just two years ago in a bitter fight with Democrats. They returned to the subject this session in large part to address the results in Harris County in November.The election there provided a contentious backdrop because there were real issues during the vote. Some polling places opened late, while others struggled with enough paper to accommodate the two-sheet ballot printouts needed for the county’s huge list of races. The local district attorney, a Democrat, opened an investigation last year.“The legislative push is to make sure that this never happens in any county in Texas,” said Senator Paul Bettencourt, a Houston Republican and the sponsor of several of the bills. “I believe the lack of ballot paper is voter suppression.”But county officials said the election bills do not address the issues that arose in Harris County. Instead, they said, the proposed laws could dampen turnout by limiting voting options and would give a partisan secretary of state, an official appointed by the governor, the power to overturn results and order a new vote if ballot paper issues arose again.Christian Menefee, the Harris County attorney, said the election challenges appeared to try to lay the groundwork for giving Republicans more control over the elections in a Democratic county. “It is a solution in search of a problem that’s not widespread,” he said.“As a Black man whose grandfather paid a poll tax, this whole ordeal is infuriating,” said Mr. Menefee, a Democrat. “It’s a complete misuse of the word disenfranchisement from people who, by the way, are still working to disenfranchise folks.”The scale of the problems on Election Day — which featured new voting machines and a lengthy ballot that required two pages of paper per voter — remain a matter of dispute, both in court and before the Legislature. But they do not appear to have affected the vast majority of the county’s 782 polling locations.Election workers organized ballot machines and results at NRG Arena in Houston on Election Day in 2022.Annie Mulligan for The New York TimesAt a hearing before a State House committee in March, the head of the secretary of state’s elections division said that despite logistical problems, the 2022 election “was one of the best elections we’ve seen” in several years in Harris County, though he acknowledged it was a low bar given the roundly criticized primary election earlier in the year.Republicans have said the November results were indeed affected because, they have argued, the ballot issues arose in precincts where their voters turn out in large numbers. Democratic county officials have said the problems occurred in other areas as well and were limited in scope: A postelection report by the election administrator, Clifford Tatum, found that 68 polling places reported running out of paper on Election Day, and 61 said they later received additional paper.County officials have resisted releasing documents and other information about the handling of voting issues on Election Day in response to public information requests, citing the ongoing litigation. Among Senator Bettencourt’s election bills is one that would remove the “litigation exception” for requests for certain election records.With that backdrop, the State Senate has advanced more than a dozen election bills, explicitly or implicitly aimed at Harris County, an area larger than the state of Rhode Island that includes not only the reliably Democratic city of Houston but also some of its more moderate suburbs.The county since 2016 has shifted ever more firmly into the Democratic column in presidential races and local ones as well, as formerly conservative neighborhoods and growing Houston suburbs have grown more diverse and trended blue. The political make-up of the five-member commissioners court, which administers the county, has gone from a three-two Republican majority in 2014 to a four-one Democratic majority now.Republicans are hoping, if not to reverse that trend, then at least to keep the contests close and, sometimes, winnable.“The Texas Legislature will ensure that there are consequences for Harris County’s failure to run elections,” said Senator Mayes Middleton, a Houston-area Republican and the sponsor of the bill to allow the secretary of state to order new elections in certain cases of ballot paper problems. “Disenfranchising voters is unacceptable,” Mr. Middletown said, in a statement.Also of concern to Democrats and advocates of expanding access to the polls is another bill, which passed the State Senate last month, that would limit voters to their assigned polling place. Some counties, including Harris County, currently allow voters to cast a ballot anywhere in the county.“It’s definitely one of the most damaging,” said Katya Ehresman, the voting rights program manager at the advocacy group Common Cause Texas, because by limiting voters’ options it could decrease turnout. The bill, like others that have made it through the Senate, must still pass the more moderate, Republican-controlled State House.In the last election, voters whose polling places ran out of paper were able to go to another location in the county, though some gave up without voting.Twenty-one Republican candidates have filed election challenges, including Alexandra del Moral Mealer, who lost the Harris County judge race by 18,000 votes.Annie Mulligan for The New York TimesMany of the legal challenges to the November election in Harris County involve voters who were unable to cast ballots.Leila Perrin said she had gone to vote in a more conservative section of West Houston shortly before the polls closed on Election Day and encountered a chaotic scene. “I went to get out of my car, and these people were leaving and they said, ‘Don’t bother,’” she recalled. “I said ‘Why?’ And they said, ‘They don’t have any paper ballots.’”Ms. Perrin, 72, had planned to vote against the top county official, the Democratic county judge Lina Hidalgo. So she drove to another polling site nearby and found the same situation. By then it was 10 minutes before the polls closed. “So I just went home. I was furious,” she said.Twenty-one Republican candidates have filed election challenges including Ms. Perrin’s favored candidate, Alexandra del Moral Mealer, who lost to Ms. Hidalgo by 18,000 votes. The first trial is set to begin in June.Some voters also found themselves unable to vote in predominantly Democratic precincts temporarily on Election Day, though no Democratic candidates have filed challenges. For example, voters were turned away from one such location that did not open for hours. All polls in the county were ordered to stay open an extra hour under an emergency court order, but then voting was halted by the Texas Supreme Court after an appeal from the Republican attorney general.“Issues don’t mean conspiracies,” said Representative John Bucy, a Democratic member of the Texas House elections committee. “Our elections are run effectively in the state of Texas. Nothing is perfect, but they’re effective.”At a hearing of the elections committee last month, an election judge in Harris County said he had run out of paper by 6 p.m. on Election Day despite flagging the issue several times during the day.“We had about 40 people in line, most of whom left to find another polling place,” said the judge, Christopher Russo. Those who stayed would be able to vote, he said he told them, but he could not guarantee how long it would take to get the paper.“I finally received ballot paper at 9:05 p.m.,” he said. By that time, only four people remained in line. More

    • 125 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      How to Police Gerrymanders? Some Judges Say the Courts Can’t.

      by

      A North Carolina court, following the lead of the U.S. Supreme Court, ruled that courts don’t have the ability to determine if a political map is legal, giving legislators a free pass.WASHINGTON — Courts decide vexing legal matters and interpret opaque constitutional language all the time, from defining pornography and judging whether a search or seizure is unreasonable to determining how speedy a speedy trial must be.And then there is the issue that some judges increasingly say is beyond their abilities to adjudicate. It was on display again last week, in North Carolina.The North Carolina Supreme Court said that it could find no way to determine when even egregious gerrymanders — in this case, lopsided partisan maps of the state’s General Assembly and its 14 congressional districts — cross the line between skewed but legal and unconstitutionally rigged. In addition, the justices said, any court-ordered standard “would embroil the judiciary in every local election in every county, city and district across the state.”The effect was to give the Republican-led legislature carte blanche to draw new maps for 2024 elections that lock in G.O.P. political dominance, even though the state’s electorate is split almost evenly between the two major parties.Under its current court-ordered map, North Carolina now elects seven Democrats and seven Republicans to the U.S. House. Maps drawn by the Republican legislature could mean 10 Republicans to four Democrats, or possibly 11 to three. Without judicial review, the only remedy is to vote the dominant party out using maps drawn to keep them in power.The 5-to-2 decision, which fell along party lines in a court led by Republicans, pointedly threw out a ruling by a Democrat-led court only a few months earlier that said such lines could — and should — be drawn. In that respect, the North Carolina ruling reinforced what seems to be a hardening partisan divide between jurists who believe unfair political maps should be policed and ones who do not.The U.S. Supreme Court also split along partisan lines in 2019 when it ruled 5 to 4, after decades of dithering, that it could not devise a legal standard to regulate partisan gerrymandering, though it suggested that state courts could.It is hard to separate party allegiance from jurists’ positions, said Paul M. Smith, the senior vice president of the Campaign Legal Center, a nonpartisan advocacy group that litigates voting rights issues.“One explanation would be that the courts decide cases about elections based on who will be helped,” he said. “On some days, I’m cynical enough to believe that.” Whether that consciously figures in court decisions, though, is less easy to say, he added.Nate Persily, a Stanford Law School professor and expert on election law and democracy, said that any standard for judging partisan gerrymanders has to be above reproach.“The response is always going to be that you’re picking winners and losers,” he said. “Unless we come up with some sort of clear mathematical test, I respect the argument that judges’ political preferences might creep into the process.” Passing judgment on a legislature’s constitutional authority to set political boundaries can be a fraught exercise. In 1962, one U.S. Supreme Court justice, Charles Evans Whittaker, who had heard the historic redistricting case Baker v. Carr, suffered a nervous breakdown during the court’s deliberations and skipped the final vote.But some say that just because it is hard to create fair district lines does not mean it cannot be done.“I think that’s intellectually dishonest and intellectually lazy,” Rebecca Szetela, a political independent and a member of the Michigan Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission, said in an interview. “We had a commission made up of 13 randomly selected voters of varying educational backgrounds, and somehow we were able to come up with fair standards.”The Michigan commissioners drew their first set of maps after the 2020 election, following orders not to give any party a “disproportionate advantage.” They relied on several statistical metrics to meet that standard. But overall, they decided that an acceptable range for the statewide ratio of votes to seats won would fall within five percentage points of their calculation of the state’s political preferences: 52 percent Democratic, 48 percent Republican.In practice, Ms Szetela said, the maps hewed closely to the calculated partisan divide. Still, some experts say that it is impossible to construct a standard that will be reliably fair. Daniel H. Lowenstein, an election-law expert at UCLA School of Law, said that would-be regulators of partisan gerrymanders by and large know little of how politics really works. He said that he picked up such an education during the 1970s while working in the California Secretary of State office, and later while running the state’s Fair Political Practices Commission.“There’s nothing in the Constitution that says elections have to be fair,” he said, “and that’s a good thing, because different people all have different concepts of what it means to be fair.”Peter H. Schuck, professor emeritus of law at Yale wrote a detailed analysis on the topic, “The Thickest Thicket,” in 1987. “I just don’t see any objective criteria that would be authoritative in assessing whether a gerrymander ought to be upheld or not,” he said. A few other state courts have set standards for partisan gerrymandering and applied them. Pennsylvania was the first state to strike down partisan gerrymanders in 2018, and the Alaska Supreme Court upheld a lower-court decision last month stating that gerrymandered State Senate seats violated the State Constitution’s equal protection clause.Many voting rights advocates say the same computer-driven advances that enable today’s extreme gerrymanders also make it possible to easily spot them.In particular, software programs can now generate thousands and even millions of maps of hypothetical political districts, each with small variations in their borders. Using statistical measures, those maps can be compared to a map being contested to gauge their partisan slant.In actual court cases, the technique has shown that some gerrymandered maps produce more lopsided partisan outcomes than 99 percent and more of the hypothetical ones.Measures of partisanship have improved, as social scientists employed data analytics to tease out the partisan impact of map changes. One yardstick, called the efficiency gap, gauges how much the votes of one party are wasted when its voters are disproportionately packed into one district or carved up among several. Another, partisan bias, measures the effectiveness of a gerrymandered map by calculating how many seats the same map would give each party in a hypothetical election where voters were split 50-50. There are many others, and each has its shortcomings. For example, voters sort themselves geographically, with a lopsided share of Democrats packed in cities and Republicans in rural areas, for reasons that have nothing to do with partisan skulduggery. And some metrics are useful only in particular situations, such as in states where party support is closely divided.In a 2017 hearing in a Wisconsin partisan gerrymander case, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. called such metrics “sociological gobbledygook.” But if so, much of American jurisprudence carries the same label, said Nicholas Stephanopoulos, a Harvard University law professor who has been a leading advocate of standards to judge partisan gerrymanders.“In any voting rights case, people have to calculate racial polarization, which is a far more complex calculation than the efficiency gap,” he said. “You have to calculate the compactness of districts. You have to estimate voting patterns for minority voters and white voters.”“Tests involving some matter of degree are just ubiquitous in constitutional law,” he added, and nothing makes a partisan gerrymander case any different.Mr. Stephanopoulos and others also say that drawing a line between permissible and illegal political maps is not all that difficult. Courts make similar judgments in lawsuits claiming racial bias in redistricting, he noted. After the one-person, one-vote ruling in 1964, judges quickly set a limit — 10 percent — on how much political districts could deviate from the new requirement to have substantially equal populations.Some gerrymandering yardsticks have already been suggested. For example, a political map might be assumed constitutional unless measures of partisanship uniformly argued against it. At that point, the body that drew the map would have to demonstrate another compelling reason for the way boundaries were drawn.Critics like Professor Lowenstein argue that any dividing line between unfair and fair maps will have an unwanted consequence: Every subsequent map may be drawn to extract as much partisan gain as possible, yet fall just short of the legal standard for rejection.“The ultimate question,” Professor Schuck said, “is how crude a fit should a court be willing to accept?”Then again, he pointed out, the U.S. Supreme Court and the North Carolina Supreme Court have answered that question: Future political maps, they have ruled, can be as crude as their makers want them to be.“Declining to apply a rule is still going to validate or invalidate what politicians have done,” he said. “There’s no total innocence, no virginity, as it were.” More

    • 100 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Florida Legislature Moves to Shield DeSantis’s Travel Records

      by

      The NewsThe Florida Legislature passed a bill on Tuesday that would shield the travel records of Gov. Ron DeSantis and other top elected officials from public view, a significant change to the state’s vaunted sunshine laws as Mr. DeSantis explores a potential presidential campaign.Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida has faced increasing scrutiny for his use of private chartered flights.Justin Ide/ReutersWhy It Matters: Who’s paying, and who else is flying?Though the law purports to shield Mr. DeSantis’s and other top officials’ travel records under the umbrella of increasing threats and operational security, it also includes a sweeping retroactive clause that would block the release of many records of trips already taken by Mr. DeSantis and other officials, as well as those taken by their families and staff members.Mr. DeSantis has been facing increasing scrutiny for his use of private chartered flights — including questions about who paid for the travel and who flew with him — especially as his presidential ambitions come into clearer focus and he travels the country more extensively.In years past, Florida’s expansive transparency laws have exposed officials’ abuses of state resources: In 2003, for example, Jim King, the president of the State Senate, was found to have used a state plane to fly home on the weekends.What’s Next: A target for other potential Republican contenders.The bill now heads to Mr. DeSantis’s desk. The governor has avoided directly commenting on the bill and has stated that he did not draft the initiative, but many Florida Republicans expect that he will sign it into law.“It’s not necessarily something that I came up with,” Mr. DeSantis said on Monday at an event in Titusville. He added that the legislation was “motivated by a security concern” and that he had been receiving a lot of threats.The Florida Department of Law Enforcement, which is led by a DeSantis appointee, has also expressed support for the bill, stating in April that releasing travel details “represents a risk not only to those we protect, but also F.D.L.E. agents and citizens attending events.”Critics of the bill, however, note that adding the retroactive clause does not fit with a security justification. “How is there a security issue for travel that’s already occurred?” said Barbara Petersen, the executive director of the Florida Center for Government Accountability, after the bill first advanced out of committee in April.The proposed changes have drawn the attention of some of Mr. DeSantis’s potential Republican rivals for president.“In recent months, Governor DeSantis has used taxpayer dollars to travel around the country for his 2024 presidential campaign, including to the early voting states of Iowa and Nevada,” the campaign of Donald J. Trump said in a statement last month. “DeSantis’s gubernatorial office, however, refuses to tell reporters — and the public — how much taxpayer money has been spent to fund these travels, or how much DeSantis’s April globe-trotting will cost.” More

    • 88 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Georgia’s Hot Mess Is Headed Your Way

      by

      Here’s a head scratcher for you: What happens when the leadership of a political party becomes so extreme, so out of touch with its voters, that it alienates many of its own activists and elected officials? And what happens when some of those officials set up a parallel infrastructure that lets them circumvent the party for campaign essentials such as fund-raising and voter turnout? At what point does this party become mostly a bastion of wingnuts, spiraling into chaos and irrelevance?No need to waste time guessing. Just cast your eyes upon Georgia, one of the nation’s electoral battlegrounds, where the state Republican Party has gone so far down the MAGA rabbit hole that many of its officeholders — including Gov. Brian Kemp, who romped to re-election last year despite being targeted for removal by Donald Trump — are steering clear of it as if it’s their gassy grandpa at Sunday supper.Republicans elsewhere should keep watch. Democrats too. What’s happening in Georgia is a cautionary tale for pluralism, an example of how the soul of a party can become warped and wrecked when its leadership veers toward narrow extremism. And while every state’s political dynamics are unique, a variation of the Peach State drama could be headed your way soon — if it hasn’t begun already.The backstory: Some Republican incumbents took offense last year when the Georgia G.O.P.’s Trump-smitten chairman, David Shafer, backed Trump-preferred challengers in the primaries. (Mr. Trump, you will recall, was desperate to unseat several Republicans after they declined to help him steal the 2020 election.) Those challengers went down hard, and Mr. Kemp in particular emerged as a superhero to non-Trumpist Republicans. Even so, scars remain. “That’s a burn that’s hard to get over,” says Brian Robinson, a Republican strategist who served as an adviser to former Gov. Nathan Deal.The clash also made clear that Republican candidates, or at least popular incumbents, don’t much need the party apparatus anymore. This is part of a broader trend: The clout of parties has long been on the slide because of changes in how campaigns are funded. That got turbocharged in Georgia in 2021, when its legislature, the General Assembly, passed a Kemp-backed bill allowing certain top officials (and their general-election challengers) to form leadership PACs, which can coordinate with candidates’ campaigns and accept megadonations free from pesky dollar limits.The PAC Mr. Kemp set up, the Georgians First Leadership Committee, raked in gobs of cash and built a formidable voter data and turnout machine. The governor plans to use it to aid fellow Republicans, establishing himself as a power center independent of the state party.As big-money conduits, leadership PACs can bring plenty of their own problems. But whatever their larger implications, in the current mess that is Georgia Republican politics, they also mean that elected leaders “don’t have to play nice in the sandbox with a group that is sometimes at odds with them,” says Mr. Robinson.The governor says he will skip the state party’s convention in June, as will the state’s attorney general, its insurance commissioner and its secretary of state. At a February luncheon for his Georgians First PAC, Mr. Kemp basically told big donors not to waste their money on the party, saying that the midterms showed “we can no longer rely on the traditional party infrastructure to win in the future,” the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported.New party leadership is on the way. Mr. Shafer is not seeking another term. (Fun fact: He is under investigation for his role in the pro-Trump fake-elector scheme of 2020.) Party delegates will elect his successor at the upcoming state convention. But the problems run deeper. Republican critics say that the party culture has become steeped in the paranoid politics of MAGA and election denial. And in the current environment, “everyone must pledge their undying loyalty to Donald Trump above all else,” says Jay Morgan, who was an executive director of the state party in the 1980s and now runs a public affairs firm in Atlanta.Mr. Shafer defends his tenure, noting in particular that, since he took over in 2019, the party has gone from being mired in debt to having “over $1 million in the bank.”To be fair, the Georgia G.O.P. has a rich history of rocky relations with its governors. But the Trump era, which brought a wave of new grassroots activists and outsiders into party meetings, put the situation “on steroids,” says Martha Zoller, a Republican consultant and talk radio host.“Right now, it’s largely a place disconnected from reality,” adds Cole Muzio, a Kemp ally and the president of Frontline Policy Action, a conservative advocacy group.That seems unlikely to change any time soon, as some of the party’s more extreme elements gain influence. In recent months, leadership elections at the county and district levels have seen wins by candidates favored by the Georgia Republican Assembly, a coterie of ultraconservatives, plenty of whom are still harboring deep suspicions about the voting system.One of the more colorful winners was Kandiss Taylor, the new chairwoman of the First Congressional District. A keen peddler of conspiracy nuttiness, Ms. Taylor ran for governor last year, proclaiming herself “the ONLY candidate bold enough to stand up to the Luciferian Cabal.” After winning just slightly more than 3 percent of the primary vote, she declared that the election results could not be trusted and refused to concede — an antidemocratic move straight from the Trump playbook. As a chairwoman, she is promising “big things” for her district. So southeast Georgia has that to look forward to.Why should anyone care about the state of the Georgia G.O.P.? Well, what is happening in Georgia is unlikely to stay in Georgia — and has repercussions that go beyond the health and functionality of the Republican Party writ large. After election deniers failed to gain control of statewide offices across the nation in 2022, many of them refocused their efforts farther down the food chain. In February, The Associated Press detailed the push by some of these folks to become state party chairmen, who are typically chosen by die-hard activists. In Michigan, for instance, the state G.O.P. elevated the Trumpist conspiracy lover and failed secretary of state candidate Kristina Karamo to be its chairwoman.MAGA zealots don’t simply present ideological concerns, though their politics do tend toward the fringes. Too many embraced the stop-the-steal fiction that the electoral system has been compromised by nefarious Democrats and must be “saved” by any means necessary. Letting them oversee any aspect of the electoral process seems like a poor idea.If this development persists, Republicans more interested in the party’s future than in relitigating its past might want to look at how Kemp & Company have been trying to address their intraparty problems — and what more could and should be done to insulate not only the party’s less-extreme candidates, but also the democratic system, from these fringe forces. There are risks that come with ticking off election deniers and other Trumpian dead-enders. But the greater risk to the overall party, and the nation, would be declining to do so.The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. More

    • 113 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      North Carolina Gerrymander Ruling Reflects Politicization of Judiciary Nationally

      by

      When it had a Democratic majority last year, the North Carolina Supreme Court voided the state’s legislative and congressional maps as illegal gerrymanders. Now the court has a Republican majority, and says the opposite.Last year, Democratic justices on the North Carolina Supreme Court ruled that maps of the state’s legislative and congressional districts drawn to give Republicans lopsided majorities were illegal gerrymanders. On Friday, the same court led by a newly elected Republican majority looked at the same facts, reversed itself and said it had no authority to act.The practical effect is to enable the Republican-controlled General Assembly to scrap the court-ordered State House, Senate and congressional district boundaries that were used in elections last November, and draw new maps skewed in Republicans’ favor for elections in 2024. The 5-to-2 ruling fell along party lines, reflecting the takeover of the court by Republican justices in partisan elections last November.The decision has major implications not just for the state legislature, where the G.O.P. is barely clinging to the supermajority status that makes its decisions veto-proof, but for the U.S. House, where a new North Carolina map could add at least three Republican seats in 2024 to what is now a razor-thin Republican majority. Overturning such a recent ruling by the court was a highly unusual move, particularly on a pivotal constitutional issue in which none of the facts had changed.The North Carolina case mirrors a national trend in which states that elect their judges — Ohio, Kentucky, Kansas, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and others — have seen races for their high court seats turned into multimillion-dollar political battles, and their justices’ rulings viewed through a deeply partisan lens.Such political jockeying once was limited mostly to confirmation fights over seats on the U.S. Supreme Court. But as the nation’s partisan divide has deepened, and the federal courts have offloaded questions about issues like abortion and affirmative action to the states, choosing who will decide state legal battles has increasingly become an openly political fight.The new Republican majority of justices said the North Carolina Supreme Court had no authority to strike down partisan maps that the General Assembly had drawn.“Our constitution expressly assigns the redistricting authority to the General Assembly subject to explicit limitations in the text,” Chief Justice Paul Newby wrote for the majority. “Were this court to create such a limitation, there is no judicially discoverable or manageable standard for adjudicating such claims.”Justice Newby said that Democrats who led the previous court had claimed to have developed a standard for deciding when a political map was overly partisan, but that it was “riddled with policy choices” and overstepped the State Constitution’s grant of redistricting powers to the legislature.Legal scholars said the ruling also seemed likely to derail a potentially momentous case now before the U.S. Supreme Court involving the same maps. In that case, Moore v. Harper, leaders of the Republican-run legislature have argued that the U.S. Constitution gives state lawmakers the sole authority to set rules for state elections and political maps, and that state courts have no role in overseeing them.Now that the North Carolina Supreme Court has sided with the legislature and thrown out its predecessor’s ruling, there appears to be no dispute for the federal justices to decide, the scholars said.The ruling drew a furious dissent from one of the elected Democratic justices, Anita S. Earls, who said that it was pervaded by “lawlessness.” She accused the majority of making specious legal arguments, and at times using misleading statistics, to make a false case that partisan gerrymandering was beyond its jurisdiction.“The majority ignores the uncontested truths about the intentions behind partisan gerrymandering and erects an unconvincing facade that only parrots democratic values in an attempt to defend its decision, ” she wrote. “These efforts to downplay the practice do not erase its consequences and the public will not be gaslighted.”Some legal experts said the ruling underscored a trend in state courts that elect their justices, in which decisions in politically charged cases increasingly align with the ideological views of whichever party holds the majority on the court, sometimes regardless of legal precedent.“If you think the earlier State Supreme Court was wrong, we have mechanisms to change that, like a constitutional amendment,” Joshua A. Douglas, a scholar on state constitutions at the University of Kentucky College of Law, said in an interview. “But changing judges shouldn’t cause such a sea change in the rule of law, because if that’s the case, precedent has no value any longer, and judges really are politicians.”The state court also handed down two more rulings in politically charged cases, overturning decisions that favored voting-rights advocates and their Democratic supporters.In the first, the justices reconsidered and reversed a ruling by the previous court, again along party lines, that a voter ID law passed by the Republican majority in the legislature violated the equal protection clause in the State Constitution.In the second, the justices said a lower court “misapplied the law and overlooked facts crucial to its ruling” when it struck down a state law denying voting rights to people who had completed prison sentences on felony charges but were not yet released from parole, probation or other court restrictions.The lower court had said that the state law was rooted in an earlier law written to deny voting rights to African Americans, a conclusion that the Supreme Court justices said was mistaken.The new ruling undid a decision that had restored voting rights to more than 55,000 North Carolinians who had completed prison sentences. Those rights are now revoked, lawyers said, although the status of former felons who had already registered or voted under the previous ruling appeared unclear.The ruling on Friday in the gerrymander case, now known as Harper v. Hall, came after partisan elections for two Supreme Court seats in November shifted the seven-member court’s political balance to 5-to-2 Republican, from 4-to-3 Democratic.The Democratic-controlled court ruled along party lines in February 2022 that both the state legislative maps and the congressional district maps approved by the Republican legislature violated the State Constitution’s guarantees of free speech, free elections, free assembly and equal protection.A lower court later redrew the congressional map to be used in the November elections, but a dispute over the State Senate map, which G.O.P. leaders had redrawn, bubbled back to the State Supreme Court last winter. In one of its last acts, the Democratic majority on the court threw out the G.O.P.’s State Senate map, ordering that it be redrawn again. The court then reaffirmed its earlier order in a lengthy opinion.Ordinarily, that might have ended the matter. But after the new Republican majority was elected to the court, G.O.P. legislative leaders demanded that the justices rehear not just the argument over the redrawn Senate map, but the entire case.The ruling on Friday came after a brief re-argument of the gerrymander case in mid-March.North Carolina voters are almost evenly split between the two major parties; Donald J. Trump carried the state in 2020 with 49.9 percent of the vote. But the original map of congressional districts approved by the G.O.P. legislature in 2021, and later ruled to be a partisan gerrymander, would probably have given Republicans at least 10 of the state’s 14 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives.Using a congressional map drawn last year by a court-appointed special master, the November election delivered seven congressional seats to each party. With the decision on Friday, the G.O.P. legislature is likely to approve a new map along the lines of its first one, giving state Republicans — and the slender Republican majority in the U.S. House — the opportunity to capture at least three more seats. More

    • 113 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Florida Lawmakers Clear a Potential Presidential Roadblock for DeSantis

      by

      The Florida Legislature passed an elections bill on Friday clarifying that Gov. Ron DeSantis would not have to resign early if he ran for president.Gov. Ron DeSantis has gotten just about everything he wanted out of Florida’s legislative session, which draws to a close next week.A six-week ban on abortion. The ability for Floridians to carry concealed weapons without a permit or training. An expansion of school vouchers. All laws that Mr. DeSantis could lean on heavily in a potential Republican primary for president.Now the governor’s legislative allies in Tallahassee have delivered another boon, one that is procedural but just as important: an elections bill that eliminates a potential roadblock to Mr. DeSantis declaring his candidacy for president, which he is expected to do next month. The law will ensure that Mr. DeSantis does not have to resign the governorship early if he runs for president.On Friday, the State House of Representatives approved the law with a 76-34 vote along strict party lines, with nine lawmakers abstaining. Having already been approved by the State Senate, it now heads to Mr. DeSantis’s desk.The previous provision in state law, known as the “resign-to-run” statute, could have posed a problem for Mr. DeSantis’s presidential ambitions.Although legal opinions varied, it might have compelled Mr. DeSantis, if he became a presidential candidate, to resign as governor in 2025 with two years still left in his term. The new bill cleared up any ambiguity by stating that the law does not apply to elected officials running specifically for president and vice president, meaning Mr. DeSantis can make a bid for the White House without the prospect of giving up the governor’s office should he lose the 2024 Republican primary or general election.Allies have been urging Mr. DeSantis to formally jump into the 2024 race, seeing it as the only way to deal with former President Donald J. Trump, the Republican front-runner.Sophie Park for The New York Times“I can’t think of a better training ground than the state of Florida for a future potential commander in chief,” State Representative Tyler I. Sirois, a Merritt Island Republican, said on the House floor.Republicans said they wanted to leave no ambiguity in the law and argued that presidential and vice-presidential candidates are different than others seeking elective office because they are chosen by political parties in national conventions — instead of having to simply qualify for the ballot. Democrats countered that Mr. DeSantis was getting special treatment from his legislative buddies.“Why are we signing off on allowing Ron DeSantis the ability to not do his job?” said State Representative Angie Nixon, a Jacksonville Democrat, who argued during the floor debate that Mr. DeSantis was neglecting his duties as governor.In the months before the legislative session kicked off in March, it seemed that the bill’s passage would mark a time for quiet celebration in the DeSantis camp — a tactical milestone for a campaign that seemed to have front-runner status in its grasp. But since then, the governor has frequently seemed to stumble or been stymied at crucial moments, often to the delight of former President Donald J. Trump, a declared candidate who now leads him in the polls.As Mr. DeSantis seeks to recover his footing, he will hope to present the new laws he has steered through Republican-controlled Tallahassee as evidence of what he might accomplish in the White House, while pointing to his landslide re-election last year as proof that his conservative policies have a broad base of support.“In November, December and January, Republicans all around the country were looking to DeSantis as the future of the party,” said Alex Conant, a Republican political strategist who worked as communications director for Senator Marco Rubio of Florida during his 2016 presidential campaign. “He was really hot coming off the midterms. But now it’s not so clear that Republican voters are ready to move beyond Trump.”Those close to Mr. DeSantis say he plans to make his presidential bid official in mid-May or late May, and he has already assembled the makings of a senior campaign staff.Matias J. Ocner/Miami Herald, via Associated PressPart of Mr. DeSantis’s struggle has been the challenge of running for higher office only unofficially. Such a shadow campaign limits how strongly his message can carry beyond Florida and seems to curtail his ability to criticize his presumptive main rival, Mr. Trump. Allies have been urging Mr. DeSantis to formally jump into the race, seeing it as the only way to deal with the former president.“Trump was born without gloves,” Mr. Conant said. “He is always on offense. If you’re going to run against him, expect him to wake up every day punching you.”As the pressure builds, the end of the DeSantis campaign-in-waiting finally seems near. Those close to him say he plans to make his presidential bid official in mid-May or late May. And he has assembled the makings of a senior campaign staff in Tallahassee, including veteran advisers from his time as governor and when he served in Congress. A super PAC backing his candidacy says it has raised $33 million and has hired operatives in key early voting states.The group, Never Back Down, also brought in Adam Laxalt, the former Nevada attorney general, as its chairman. Mr. Laxalt is a Trump ally who amplified the former president’s conspiracy theories about the integrity of the 2020 election. But he has longstanding ties to Mr. DeSantis, too, dating back to their days as roommates during naval officer training.“If Governor DeSantis heeds the growing calls for him to run for president, we can hit the ground running for him to win,” said Erin Perrine, the communications director for Never Back Down.As the political operation backing him grows, Mr. DeSantis has spent more and more time out of state, which has included appearances promoting his new memoir and a foreign trade mission this week. In his absence, cracks have started to appear in his political coalition back home for the first time.On Wednesday, State Senator Joe Gruters, a Republican who is a close ally of Mr. Trump, made an open show of defiance against Mr. DeSantis by voting no on a bill related to Disney. The bill — part of a yearlong feud between the company and Mr. DeSantis that has energized segments of the Republican base while alienating some members of the donor class — would nullify development agreements involving Disney.Crowds gathering to hear Mr. DeSantis during a book-signing event in Garden City, N.Y., in April.Johnny Milano for The New York TimesIn a statement, Mr. Gruters, a former chairman of the Republican Party of Florida, said that the state should “support our job creators” and avoid influencing the behavior of corporations with “the heavy hand of government.”While he was the lone Republican to vote no, and the bill passed easily, the moment came as a sign that tensions between Mr. DeSantis and Mr. Trump are spelling the end of the days when the state party stood unanimously behind the governor.Mr. DeSantis’s attacks on Disney have also recently led some national Republicans to publicly air words of caution. Mr. Rubio said he did not have a problem taking on Disney but expressed concern that businesses might be fearful of coming to Florida if politicians continued to put pressure on companies over politics. House Speaker Kevin McCarthy also weighed in.“I think it would be much better if he sat down and solved the problem,” Mr. McCarthy told CNBC on Thursday.Local leaders have taken shots at Mr. DeSantis, too.Last week, Mayor Francis Suarez of Miami, a Republican who may also run for president, criticized how Mr. DeSantis treats others during an appearance on Fox News. “Well, he seems to struggle with relationships, generally,” said Mr. Suarez, who has occasionally clashed with the governor over the years but had not attacked him so personally. “I mean, I look people in the eye when I shake their hands.”Even Dwyane Wade, the popular former star for the N.B.A.’s Miami Heat, seemed to weigh in, saying in a television interview that he left Florida in part because of the state’s stance on transgender issues. (Mr. Wade’s teenage daughter is transgender.)“My family would not be accepted or feel comfortable there,” he said, without directly referencing the governor.As part of Mr. DeSantis’s agenda, state leaders have pushed laws banning children from drag shows and criminalizing gender-affirming health care for minors, as well as expanding a law that restricts the discussion of sexual orientation and gender identities in public schools.Drag queens and their supporters marched in a protest to the State Capitol in Tallahassee, Fla., on Tuesday.Alicia Devine/Tallahassee Democrat, via Associated PressThe change to the resign-to-run law is not the first time a pliant legislature has helped out a governor. Legislators under former Governors Charlie Crist and Rick Scott adjusted the law when it seemed in their interest. Mr. DeSantis’s office did not respond when asked if he supported the change.Not every new law the governor sought this session is sure to pass.A proposal on immigration looks like it will be somewhat watered down. And the sponsor of a bill that would make it easier to sue the news media has said that the legislation is unlikely to move forward this year.Still, those who have seen Tallahassee in action say it was an unusually productive time.“I think it’s clear the governor has had a remarkable session, one of the best I can remember,” said Brian Ballard, an influential lobbyist who has served as a fund-raiser for both Mr. Trump and Mr. DeSantis.With Republicans holding supermajorities in both legislative chambers, Florida Democrats could do little but watch.Dan Gelber, the Democratic mayor of Miami Beach and a former state senator, said many of the governor’s priorities were “not important” to most Floridians.“It’s a heaping portion of red meat for his base,” Mr. Gelber said.Maggie Haberman More