Redistricting & recalls

Updates on what’s happening in Penn. and Ohio congressional redistricting processes; Court hears case on lawsuit involving the recall of two state leg [View this email in your browser]( [Ballotpedia](   [Facebook](   [Twitter](   [The Daily Brew]( Ohio Legislature advances constitutional amendment to revamp congressional redistricting process On February 5, 2018, the Ohio State Senate adopted Senate Joint Resolution 5, a bill advancing a constitutional amendment establishing new procedures for the redistricting of the state's congressional district boundaries. The Senate voted 31-0 to adopt the resolution. The state house followed suit the following day, approving the proposed amendment 83-10. The amendment is scheduled to go before voters for final approval on May 8, 2018. If approved, the congressional redistricting process will be amended as follows: - Following completion of the United States Census, state legislators could adopt a new congressional district map if three-fifths of the legislature's total membership vote to approve, including one-half of the minority party members. This map would apply for 10 years. - If the legislature proved unable to adopt a new map, a commission could be formed to adopt a map. That commission would include the governor, state auditor, secretary of state, and four legislators, two of whom would have to come from the legislature's minority party. A majority of the commission's members, including two members belonging to the minority party, would have to agree on a map. The map would apply for 10 years. - If the commission proved unable to adopt a map, state legislators would be given a second chance to adopt a map. The map would have to be approved by three-fifths of the legislature's total membership, including one-third of the minority party's members. The map would apply for 10 years. - If the legislature failed a second time, the majority party of the legislature, without support from the minority party, could adopt a map that would apply for four years. Maps drawn by the legislature could be vetoed by the governor or a veto referendum campaign. If adopted, the amendment would stipulate that 65 of Ohio's counties could not be split during redistricting (18 could be split once, and the state's five most populous counties could be split twice). Under existing Ohio law, congressional district boundaries are adopted by the state legislature via majority vote. The maps are subject to gubernatorial veto. On November 3, 2015, voters in Ohio approved a constitutional amendment to create a bipartisan state legislative redistricting commission. There is also a proposed ballot initiative that would strip legislators of their powers to adopt congressional maps. The Fair Districts Ohio Coalition, which includes the League of Women Voters, Common Cause, and the Ohio Education Association, reported collecting more than 200,000 signatures for the initiative on February 5, 2018. The coalition announced its support for SJR 5, but also said that it will keep collecting signatures as an insurance policy in case voters reject SJR 5 in May. The campaign needs to submit 306,591 valid signatures by July 4, 2018, to get its proposal placed on the November ballot. [Learn more]( [Image] A state government trifecta is a term to describe single party government, when one political party holds three positions in a state's government.  How many state government trifectas do Republicans currently hold? [29]( [18]( [26]( [22]( Penn. Supreme Court issues opinion explaining its order striking down congressional district map On February 7, 2018, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania released the majority opinion explaining its January 22, 2018, order in League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania v. the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, which struck down the state's congressional district map. The majority opinion was penned by Justice Debra Todd and read, in part, as follows:   "In sum, we conclude that the evidence detailed above and the remaining evidence of the record as a whole demonstrates that Petitioners have established that the 2011 Plan subordinates the traditional redistricting criteria in service of achieving unfair partisan advantage, and, thus, violates the Free and Equal Elections Clause of the Pennsylvania Constitution."   Chief Justice Thomas Saylor penned a dissenting opinion that read, in part, as follows:    "In summary, I believe that: the present exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction was improvident; this Court’s review would benefit from anticipated guidance from the Supreme Court of the United States; awaiting such guidance is particularly appropriate given the delay, until 2017, of Petitioners’ challenge to a 2011 redistricting plan; and the appropriate litmus for judicial review of redistricting should take into account the inherently political character of the work of the General Assembly, to which the task of redistricting has been assigned by the United States Constitution."   Justice Sallie Mundy joined Saylor's dissent and penned a separate dissent. Justice Max Baer filed an opinion that concurred in part and dissented in part with the court's majority opinion. In its January 22, 2018, order, the state supreme court found that Pennsylvania's congressional district map "clearly, plainly and palpably violates the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania." [Catch up on the timeline and details]( →   Court hears lawsuit over the recall efforts against two Nevada state senators  Clark County District Judge Jerry Wiese heard arguments on February 7 in the lawsuits over the recall efforts against state Sen. Joyce Woodhouse (D) and state Sen. Nicole Cannizzaro (D). Democrats filed the lawsuits in 2017. The lawsuits argue that thousands of names on the two recall petitions should not be counted because the people have filed to have their names removed. If the judge rules that the names can be removed from recall petitions, it will most likely drop both petitions below the threshold to force a recall election. The judge’s ruling may come as early as next week. The recall petition did not give an official reason for the recall against Sen. Woodhouse, but signature-gatherers told residents that Woodhouse was targeted for recall over her support of sanctuary city legislation. The recall seeks to replace Woodhouse with Republican Carrie Buck. Recall supporters submitted 17,502 signatures on October 30, 2017. This exceeded the 14,412 signatures needed to trigger a recall election. The Nevada Secretary of State determined 15,444 signatures were valid on November 3, 2017. The recall petition did not give an official reason for the recall against Sen. Cannizzaro, but it seeks to replace her with Republican April Becker. Recall supporters submitted 16,875 signatures on November 14, 2017. This exceeded the 14,975 signatures needed to trigger a recall election. The Nevada secretary of state’s office determined on December 19, 2017, that 15,018 signatures were valid after officials removed the signatures of people that submitted petition removal forms. [Learn more]( → Ballotpedia depends on the support of our readers. The Lucy Burns Institute, publisher of Ballotpedia, is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization. All donations are tax deductible to the extent of the law. Donations to the Lucy Burns Institute or Ballotpedia do not support any candidates or campaigns. [Donate Securely Online]( Decide which emails you want from Ballotpedia. [Unsubscribe]( or [adjust your preferences]( →   [Facebook](   [Twitter](