On March 2, 2015, the United States Supreme Court (USSC) heard arguments in Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission. The USSC considered the power of the people versus the power of the legislature. You can find an analysis of today’s argument here. Arizona state legislators were not happy with the redistricting map that the Independent Commission drafted and implemented in 2012. The Court’s decision could have widespread implications on redistrictings across the country. In places like California, where an Independent Commission has successfully drawn and redrawn congressional and state legislative districts in a nonpartisan manner, the Court’s decision could cause a ripple effect that mandates re-redistricting. If the Arizona legislature gets its way, only elected officials, not nonpartisan citizens, will have the ability to draw the lines to get themselves reelected and continue the widespread polarization that currently exists.
Civil Rights
Restoring the Right to Vote
Recently, Virginia and Kentucky took up the issue of restoring the right to vote to persons convicted of nonviolent felonies, with different results. In VA, the state house voted down a resolution that would allow for automatic restoration. In KY, state house members will need a super majority after public approval to provide restorative measures to nonviolent felons. The paradox of outcomes demonstrate that the road to restoration can be extremely difficult for the more than 5 million persons who have lost the right to vote because of former convictions.
DOJ Settles School Desegregation Case
DOJ’s settlement in a school desegregation case in Robertson County, TN seeks improvement in school construction and assignments. The settlement also includes cultural sensitivity and competency training for teachers and staff.
The Leadership Conference Suggests Criminal Justice Reform
Civil rights organizations suggest criminal justice reform measures.
Interview at ACS Convention
A discussion on the impact of Shelby County v. Holder.
