ELC IN NEWS

Direct inquires to elc@law.harvard.edu

 

Jacksonville, Dilution Veniece Miller Jacksonville, Dilution Veniece Miller

Appeal fails to overturn Jacksonville’s court-ordered City Council map

The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has rejected the city of Jacksonville’s attempt to stay a court-ordered council district map in the latest loss for the city.

The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has rejected the city of Jacksonville’s attempt to stay a court-ordered council district map in the latest loss for the city.

Read More
Jacksonville, Dilution Veniece Miller Jacksonville, Dilution Veniece Miller

Last-ditch Jacksonville redistricting appeal fails in 11th Circuit

With days to go before qualifying begins for Jacksonville’s 2023 elections, the federal 11th Circuit Court of Appeals sided with a lower court, and denied a request for stay on the map installed last month.

With days to go before qualifying begins for Jacksonville’s 2023 elections, the federal 11th Circuit Court of Appeals sided with a lower court, and denied a request for stay on the map installed last month.

Read More
Jacksonville, Dilution Veniece Miller Jacksonville, Dilution Veniece Miller

In dramatic ruling, federal judge pierces Jacksonville City Council's lies

COMMENTARY | U.S. District Judge Marcia Morales Howard on Monday struck down a new map of Jacksonville City Council districts drawn by city officials under a court order, finding the map "embedded rather than remedied" entrenched racial segregation City Hall has perpetuated for decades through the drawing of such districts.

COMMENTARY | U.S. District Judge Marcia Morales Howard on Monday struck down a new map of Jacksonville City Council districts drawn by city officials under a court order, finding the map "embedded rather than remedied" entrenched racial segregation City Hall has perpetuated for decades through the drawing of such districts.

Read More
Jacksonville, Dilution Veniece Miller Jacksonville, Dilution Veniece Miller

‘Racial segregation’: Federal judge blocks Jacksonville City Council districts as racial gerrymanders)

A federal judge has barred Jacksonville from using its City Council and Duval School Board district maps, finding that seven City Council and three School Board districts were likely racially gerrymandered.

The city must enact new Jacksonville council districts by Nov. 8, and then the redistricting plaintiffs may submit their own proposals by Nov. 18.

Read More
Jacksonville, Dilution Veniece Miller Jacksonville, Dilution Veniece Miller

Election Law Clinic presents oral arguments in Jacksonville racial gerrymandering case

On Friday, September 16, Election Law Clinic clinical instructor Daniel Hessel led the plaintiff’s oral arguments during Jacksonville Branch of the NAACP v. City of Jacksonville’s preliminary injunction hearing, arguing against the use of racially biased redistricting maps in the 2023 and 2024 city council and school board elections.

Lawyers suing over Jacksonville City Council redistricting want injunction before '23 vote

Read More
Denial Adam Harper Denial Adam Harper

A lawsuit filed against the City of Jacksonville…

A lawsuit filed against the City of Jacksonville and Duval County Supervisor of Elections Mike Hogan this week claims a new redistricting plan reduces the impact of the Black vote in minority-dominated areas of Jacksonville.

Harvard Law School election law expert Ruth Greenwood applauds the administration’s support for new voting legislation, but says the filibuster remains an obstacle

Read More
Denial Adam Harper Denial Adam Harper

Weighing President Biden’s first year: Voting and election

Harvard Law School election law expert Ruth Greenwood applauds the administration’s support for new voting legislation but says the filibuster remains an obstacle

Harvard Law School election law expert Ruth Greenwood applauds the administration’s support for new voting legislation, but says the filibuster remains an obstacle

Read More
Denial, Staples v. DeSantis Adam Harper Denial, Staples v. DeSantis Adam Harper

Lawsuit dislodges election dates from DeSantis

Theresa Lee with Harvard’s Election Law Center and one of the lawyers representing voters who sued DeSantis said in an email that while everyone is “thrilled” the lawsuit “forced the governor’s hand to carry out the duties of his office”

Theresa Lee with Harvard’s Election Law Center and one of the lawyers representing voters who sued DeSantis said in an email that while everyone is “thrilled” the lawsuit “forced the governor’s hand to carry out the duties of his office” they are not satisfied with the dates he picked out.

Read More
Denial, Staples v. DeSantis Adam Harper Denial, Staples v. DeSantis Adam Harper

Following a lawsuit filed by the Election Law Clinic, Governor Ron DeSantis called special elections for three majority-Black legislative districts, to be held in early 2022.

After ninety-one days of inaction, Governor Ron DeSantis finally called special elections for three majority-Black legislative districts with Executive Order No. 21-224. The Election Law Clinic previously filed a lawsuit to compel the Governor to fulfill this duty.

OCTOBER 29, 2021
Case: Staples v. DeSantis
Download Press Release

TALLAHASSEE, FL – After ninety-one days of inaction, Governor Ron DeSantis finally called special elections for three majority-Black legislative districts with Executive Order No. 21-224. The Election Law Clinic previously filed a lawsuit to compel the Governor to fulfill this duty.

“We are thrilled that our lawsuit and our clients’ willingness to stand up for themselves and their neighbors in court have forced the Governor’s hand to carry out the duties of his office,” said Theresa Lee, litigation director of the Election Law Clinic. 

However, the timeline set by Governor DeSantis could leave the districts without representation for almost the whole of the 2022 legislative session. 

“This is a slap in the face of voters of color,” Ms. Lee said.  “The Resign to Run law is designed to allow the lower vacancies to be on the same election schedule as the vacancy for the highest empty office. That these elections are not held on the same timeline as the election for the 20th Congressional District shows that Governor DeSantis does not have respect for the statutory scheme the legislature laid out many years ago or for Florida voters.” 

The Election Law Clinic is considering all avenues of further relief. 

# # #

Read More

ELC Files Friend of the Court Brief on Behalf of Five Former Whitford Plaintiffs Urging Court Not to Bake in Last Decade’s Partisan Gerrymander for Another Ten Years

The Wisconsin Legislature and its allies have asked the Wisconsin Supreme Court to redraw the State’s map in a way that would solidify the State’s 2011 partisan gerrymander for the next decade. ELC is representing five plaintiffs from Whitford v. Gill as amici curiae who want to ensure that the Wisconsin Supreme Court does not perpetuate the gerrymander under the guise of a “least-change” approach.

October 25, 2021
CASE: Johnson v. Wisconsin Elections Commission
PRESS RELEASE
BRIEF

WISCONSIN – Today, the Election Law Clinic at Harvard Law School (ELC), representing five former plaintiffs from Whitford v. Gill, filed a friend of the court brief urging the Wisconsin Supreme Court not to bake in the extremely gerrymandered maps that have distorted Wisconsin’s democratic governance for the last decade.  Specifically, the brief seeks to ensure that the Wisconsin Supreme Court rejects a “least-change” approach—keeping old districts intact to the extent possible—should the Court intervene and draw new district maps.

On August 22, the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty (WILL) filed a petition in the Wisconsin Supreme Court asking the Court to intervene in the redistricting process should the state government fail to enact new maps in time for the 2022 election (Johnson v. Wisconsin Elections Commission).  WILL asks the Court to use a least-change approach to draw new maps.  Such an approach would prioritize keeping the districts as gerrymandered as they were for the last decade, at the expense of all legally required redistricting criteria.  A claim had previously been filed by individual Democratic voters in the federal district court for the Western District of Wisconsin (Hunter v. Bostelmann), asking that court to draw congressional, and state legislative districts for the state. It is not yet clear whether the state or federal court will ultimately draw the maps.

As the ELC brief illustrates, neither Wisconsin law nor its past practice justify taking a least-change approach to redrawing the State’s maps.   It was not the practice of the legislature when it needlessly moved millions of voters from one district to another like pawns in a game.  And it should not be sanctioned by law where, as here, the existing map is a proven extreme partisan gerrymander.

Over the five elections between 2012 and 2020, Democrats received an average of 49.2% of the statewide vote and yet received an average of only 37 of the Assembly’s 99 seats.  Conversely, during that same time period, Republican candidates received an average of 50.8% of the vote and yet a whopping 63 of the 99 seats in the Assembly.

“Ten years of one-party advantage in a purple state was bad enough,” said Bill Whitford, amicus in the brief and former Whitford plaintiff.   

“We must not let the partisan mapmakers of 2011 determine who constitutes the Wisconsin Assembly in 2030.”

“The Wisconsin Constitution declares that governments ‘deriv[e] their just powers from the consent of the governed.’ There is no such consent when the maps are rigged against Wisconsin voters,” said Wendy Sue Johnson, amicus in the brief and former Whitford plaintiff. “A representative government allows voters to choose their representatives in each election. When politicians preserve their partisan gerrymander and choose their voters, they are governing without our consent.

“The least-change approach proposed here is at odds with Wisconsin’s Constitution, and its mandated redistricting criteria,” said Mary Brown, a student in the Election Law Clinic who worked on the brief.  “The Court should not favor an approach with no basis in Wisconsin law over redistricting criteria that Wisconsin’s Constitution explicitly mandates.”

“If the Wisconsin Supreme Court were to use a least-change approach, as the Wisconsin Legislature would have it do, the Court would be doing more than merely blessing a gerrymandered map — they would be drawing the gerrymander themselves,” said Meredith Manda, another student in the Election Law Clinic who worked on the brief.  “The Court would be just as culpable as the 2011 map architects if they go with a least-change approach.  Put simply, they would become ‘gerrymanderers in robes.’”

“There is no constitutional or statutory basis for a least-change approach,” said Jakob Feltham, attorney at Hawks Quindel and local counsel for amici.  “If the Court takes the bait, they are effectively collaborating with the Assembly to rig the maps against Wisconsin voters.  Wisconsinites’ faith in government and trust in the independence of the judiciary would only further erode if the Court bakes in this gerrymander.”

Read More