Latest news with #NationalRedistrictingFoundation
Yahoo
17-07-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Florida congressional districts that eliminated a majority-Black seat upheld by state Supreme Court
Florida's Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the state's current congressional redistricting map, rejecting a challenge over the elimination of a majority-Black district in north Florida that was pushed by Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis. The court, dominated by DeSantis appointees, ruled that restoration of the district that previously united Black communities from Jacksonville to west of Tallahassee, or across 200 miles (322 kilometers), would amount to impermissible racial gerrymandering. That, the majority ruled, violates the Constitution's equal protection guarantees. 'The record leaves no doubt that such a district would be race-predominant. The record also gives us no reasonable basis to think that further litigation would uncover a potentially viable remedy,' said Chief Justice Carlos Muniz in the court's majority opinion. The decision means Florida's current congressional districts that give Republicans a 20-8 advantage over Democrats will remain in place for the 2026 midterm elections and beyond. The former north Florida district was most recently represented by a Black Democrat, former Rep. Al Lawson. The new districts divide that area among three Republicans. A panel of three federal judges previously upheld the current congressional districts. 'This was always the constitutionally correct map — and now both the federal courts and the FL Supreme Court have upheld it,' DeSantis said on X. One of the plaintiffs, the National Redistricting Foundation, called the new ruling 'alarming' because it 'diminishes the voting power of Black Floridians' by upholding the GOP-drawn map. 'The court is abandoning the most basic role of the judiciary: to provide justice for the people,' said Marina Jenkins, executive director of the foundation. Earlier redistricting efforts by the state Legislature included versions of the north Florida district that preserved Black voting power. But after a veto by DeSantis, the governor pushed through the current map that eliminated it. In its ruling, the Supreme Court said one problem for the plaintiffs was they did not propose a viable alternative map but only pointed out potential problems with the current one. 'It is not enough in the redistricting context for challengers to identify a flaw in an enacted districting plan and demand that the court send the Legislature back to the drawing board," the decision said. Justice Jorge Labarga was the lone dissenter, contending the lawsuit should be sent back to a lower court for further proceedings to allow the challengers a chance to produce different districts. 'By foreclosing further litigation, the majority's decision now allows to remain in place a congressional redistricting plan that is unconstitutional under the Florida Constitution,' Labarga wrote. Solve the daily Crossword
Winnipeg Free Press
17-07-2025
- Politics
- Winnipeg Free Press
Florida congressional districts that eliminated a majority-Black seat upheld by state Supreme Court
Florida's Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the state's current congressional redistricting map, rejecting a challenge over the elimination of a majority-Black district in north Florida that was pushed by Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis. The court, dominated by DeSantis appointees, said in its ruling that restoration of the district that previously united Black communities from Jacksonville to west of Tallahassee, or across 200 miles (322 kilometers), would amount to impermissible racial gerrymandering. That, the majority ruled, violates the Constitution's equal protection guarantees. 'The record leaves no doubt that such a district would be race-predominant. The record also gives us no reasonable basis to think that further litigation would uncover a potentially viable remedy,' said Chief Justice Carlos Muniz in the court's majority opinion. The decision means Florida's current congressional districts that give Republicans a 20-8 advantage over Democrats will remain in place for the 2026 midterm elections and beyond. The previous north Florida district was most recently represented by a Black Democrat, former Rep. Al Lawson. The new districts divide that area among three Republicans. A panel of three federal judges previously upheld the current congressional districts. One of the plaintiffs, the National Redistricting Foundation, called the new ruling 'alarming' because it 'diminishes the voting power of Black Floridians' by upholding the GOP-drawn map. 'The court is abandoning the most basic role of the judiciary: to provide justice for the people,' said Marina Jenkins, executive director of the foundation. Earlier redistricting efforts by the state Legislature included versions of the north Florida district that preserved Black voting power. But after a veto by DeSantis, the governor pushed through the current map that eliminated it. In its ruling, the Supreme Court said one problem for the plaintiffs was they did not propose a viable alternative map but only pointed out potential problems with the current one. 'It is not enough in the redistricting context for challengers to identify a flaw in an enacted districting plan and demand that the court send the Legislature back to the drawing board,' the decision said. Justice Jorge Labarga was the lone dissenter, contending the lawsuit should be sent back to a lower court for further proceedings to allow the challengers a chance to produce different districts. 'By foreclosing further litigation, the majority's decision now allows to remain in place a congressional redistricting plan that is unconstitutional under the Florida Constitution,' Labarga wrote.
Associated Press
17-07-2025
- Politics
- Associated Press
Florida congressional districts that eliminated a majority-Black seat upheld by state Supreme Court
Florida's Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the state's current congressional redistricting map, rejecting a challenge over the elimination of a majority-Black district in north Florida that was pushed by Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis. The court, dominated by DeSantis appointees, said in its ruling that restoration of the district that previously united Black communities from Jacksonville to west of Tallahassee, or across 200 miles (322 kilometers), would amount to impermissible racial gerrymandering. That, the majority ruled, violates the Constitution's equal protection guarantees. 'The record leaves no doubt that such a district would be race-predominant. The record also gives us no reasonable basis to think that further litigation would uncover a potentially viable remedy,' said Chief Justice Carlos Muniz in the court's majority opinion. The decision means Florida's current congressional districts that give Republicans a 20-8 advantage over Democrats will remain in place for the 2026 midterm elections and beyond. The previous north Florida district was most recently represented by a Black Democrat, former Rep. Al Lawson. The new districts divide that area among three Republicans. A panel of three federal judges previously upheld the current congressional districts. One of the plaintiffs, the National Redistricting Foundation, called the new ruling 'alarming' because it 'diminishes the voting power of Black Floridians' by upholding the GOP-drawn map. 'The court is abandoning the most basic role of the judiciary: to provide justice for the people,' said Marina Jenkins, executive director of the foundation. Earlier redistricting efforts by the state Legislature included versions of the north Florida district that preserved Black voting power. But after a veto by DeSantis, the governor pushed through the current map that eliminated it. In its ruling, the Supreme Court said one problem for the plaintiffs was they did not propose a viable alternative map but only pointed out potential problems with the current one. 'It is not enough in the redistricting context for challengers to identify a flaw in an enacted districting plan and demand that the court send the Legislature back to the drawing board,' the decision said. Justice Jorge Labarga was the lone dissenter, contending the lawsuit should be sent back to a lower court for further proceedings to allow the challengers a chance to produce different districts. 'By foreclosing further litigation, the majority's decision now allows to remain in place a congressional redistricting plan that is unconstitutional under the Florida Constitution,' Labarga wrote.
Boston Globe
14-02-2025
- Politics
- Boston Globe
Including people without legal status in census has had little impact on House seats, study finds
'This would have had no bearing on party control of the House or the outcome of presidential elections,' they said. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Why does this matter? Advertisement The 14th Amendment states 'the whole number of persons in each state' should be counted for the numbers used for apportionment, the process of allocating congressional seats and Electoral College votes among the states, based on population after each census. As a result, the U.S. Census Bureau has counted all U.S. residents in the once-a-decade censuses, regardless of their citizenship or legal status, and those numbers have been used for apportionment. But some Republicans have argued that only citizens should be counted for apportionment. A Republican redistricting expert wrote in the past decade that using citizen voting-age population instead of the total population for the purpose of redrawing congressional and legislative districts could be advantageous to Republicans and non-Hispanic whites. 'Americans deserve fair and equal representation, something that will not be possible until we eliminate the influence of noncitizens in our elections,' U.S. Rep. Chuck Edwards, R-NC, said earlier this year when introducing legislation to prohibit noncitizens from being included in the apportionment count. The GOP attorneys general of Kansas, Louisiana, Ohio and West Virginia last month filed a lawsuit attempting to exclude people in the U.S. illegally from the apportionment numbers. Voters in California and Texas, supported by the Democratic-affiliated National Redistricting Foundation, have asked to intervene, saying the GOP lawsuit would harm them by taking away congressional representation and Electoral College votes from their states. Advertisement What's the history behind this? During his first term, President Donald Trump signed an order that would have excluded people in the U.S. illegally from being included in the 2020 census numbers used for apportionment. The Republican president also later mandated the collection of citizenship data through administrative records. Trump issued the memos after the U.S. Supreme Court blocked an earlier attempt to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census questionnaire. The high court said the administration's justification for the question 'seems to have been contrived.' Both Trump orders were rescinded when President Joe Biden arrived at the White House in January 2021, before the 2020 census figures were released by the Census Bureau. Upon returning to the White House last month, Trump rescinded the Biden order. What does the research show? Because the number of House seats is set at 435, apportionment is a zero-sum game. Under the hypothetical scenario of not counting people who were in the country illegally, two seats would have switched states in 1980, with California and New York each losing a seat and Indiana and Georgia each gaining one, according to the demographers. In 1990, California would have lost two seats, Texas would have lost a single seat and Kentucky, Massachusetts and Montana each would have gained a seat. In 2000, Indiana, Michigan, Mississippi and Montana each would have gained a seat, California would have lost three seats and Texas would have lost a single seat, under the scenario. After the 2010 census, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, Ohio and North Carolina each would have gained a seat, California would have lost three seats and Texas and Florida each would have lost a single seat. After the 2020 census, California and Texas each would have lost a seat, and Ohio and New York would have gained a seat each. Advertisement
Yahoo
08-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Legal battle underway to secure Alabama's current congressional districts
MOBILE, Ala. (WKRG) — A legal battle over Alabama's congressional districts begins Monday at Hugo Black Federal Courthouse in Birmingham. If the map changes again, there could be statewide implications. Former Mobile County Commissioner Stephen Nodine cleared to run for mayor On Friday, a coalition of local community groups in Mobile came together at Government Plaza to discuss the appropriate representation leading into next week's trial. In court next week, the National Redistricting Foundation will fight to ensure the current district map remains in place for the rest of the decade. 'Both the U.S. Supreme Court and the district court have already agreed that a textbook application of Section 2 requires a map with two Black opportunity districts in Alabama,' NRF Executive Director Marina Jenkins said. This includes the new District 2, which includes both Mobile and Montgomery. Escambia County deputies searching for stolen vehicle suspect after chase The new District 2 map was drawn by the federal court in 2023 and was recently won by Democrat Shomari Figures in November 2024. 'This case isn't just about a congressional map,' Jenkins said. 'It's about representation and living up to the fundamental ideal that should guide our Democracy.' 'That every individual has the right to exercise self-determination at the ballot box,' she continued. This led some Republicans to change their mind and want the map lines to be drawn again. Jamaican nationals arrested in Baldwin County face federal charges in lottery scam Stand Up Mobile co-founder Beverly Cooper told that it is important that all Alabamians are represented in Congress. 'I believe that not just African Americans,' Cooper said. 'But people in the state of Alabama and around the country are concerned about what do we have when we look at our American democracy.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
