***BREAKING - NAACP SEEKS TO HAVE 2011 LEGISLATIVE ELECTIONS SET ASIDE***

Just in case you thought the 2011 legislative redistricting issue was dead... NAACP Motion to Set Aside 2011 Legislative Elections

BREAKING: MARSHALL COUNTY ASKS DOJ TO REJECT REDISTRICTING PLAN

Here is the letter from the Marshall County Board of Supervisors asking that the Department of Justice reject the Republican-drawn redistricting plan as violative of Sections 2 and 5 of the Voting Rights Act:

More on the Republican redistricting plans from 2011

Last May, Mississippi Republicans finally released their redistricting plans.  In doing so, they praised the plans' 1% population deviation as the gold standard and the true measure of any redistricting plan's worth.  I posted about that then, and commend you to read it again, particularly if you're going to be following the redistricting process this year.  Here's that prior post:  MSGOP releases proposed redistricting plans for both chambers (finally)

***BREAKING - Reason for delay in redistricting process revealed*** (SATIRE)

(***The following is satire.***)

Conversations with redistricting experts aiding the Legislature in their efforts to draw new maps have uncovered the reason behind the extensive delay in completing the process: Rep. Bill Denny (R - Jackson), chairman of the House Reapportionment Committee, drew the House maps thinking the 3/5ths Compromise was still in place. Understandably, this caused major alarm when his House map was finally submitted for expert approval.  The practice of placing a large number of minority voters into a small number of districts is known as "packing."  Denny defended himself by saying, "It ain't packing if they're not equal to us."

Sources inside the Capitol say that Denny had relied heavily on Rep. John Moore (R - Brandon) for advice concerning the legality of the proposed lines as he was drafting them. Reached for comment, Moore defended his advice to Denny concerning the 3/5ths Compromise by saying he'd learned that from his friend Richard Barrett.

(Seriously, Rep. Bill Denny doesn't think the 3/5ths Compromise is still in place.  He knows full well it isn't, as he lost several grandsons in the Civil War.  The stuff about Richard Barrett, though, is not satire.  He was an avowed white supremacist.  Also, Barrett didn't leave half of his estate to Rep. Moore because he and Moore didn't get along.)

Redistricting statutes being ignored by Republican legislators?

Rep. Bill Denny (R-Jackson)

If you were like me, you thought Friday's article in the Clarion-Ledger regarding the current state of redistricting signaled that something fishy was going on.  In short, neither Rep. Bill Denny (R-Jackson) nor Sen. Merle Flowers (R-Southaven), the chairmen of the House and Senate committees on redistricting, would say a word about the process used to draw the new district lines.  Rep. Denny did say that the plans had been submitted to experts, but said he didn't know who those experts were (Sounds like he's got total control of the situation, if you ask me.).  Sen. Flowers wouldn't comment at all, and Lt. Gov. Tate Reeves (R) said that the plans would be revealed in the next few weeks.

Does Bill Denny saying, "Take my word, I've drawn something" count?

It seems like the only bit of news the Republican leadership wanted to get out was that the maps were drawn.  Why would that be important?

Let me introduce you to Section 5-3-93 of the Mississippi Code:

The members of the committee shall draw a plan to apportion, according to constitutional standards, the membership of the Mississippi Senate and the Mississippi House of Representatives no later than fifteen (15) days prior to the scheduled adjournment of the next regular session of the Legislature following the delivery of the 2000 decennial census data to the state and every ten (10) years thereafter and at such other times as they may be directed by joint resolution of the Mississippi Legislature.

Provided, however, the committee shall not be required to present a plan to the Legislature prior to four (4) months after the publication of census data.

Well guess what Saturday was?  The 15th day prior to the scheduled adjournment of this legislative session.  That means that the plans had to have been drawn by the committee no later than Saturday.  The question then becomes, what it means for a committee to draw a plan?  This opens several lines of inquiry: Does it mean that the chairman of the committee can just put pen to paper?  And if that's the case, how do you know that the law has been satisfied if the maps are not released?  Or does it mean that a plan has to be voted upon by the committee?  It's almost a nonsensical requirement to force a committee to draw a map and not vote on it. And how does a "committee" draw a plan, anyway? By voting on it, I would presume.

So that's why Republicans were rushing to get the word out that they'd "drawn" maps.

111 Days and counting...

But the question of whether last Friday's dog and pony show passes the drawing test is not the only problem Republicans are facing with statutes governing reapportionment.  Check out Section 5-3-103 of the Mississippi Code:

Upon completion of apportionment plans, the committee shall present its plans to the Mississippi Legislature, which shall act on the plans not later than the next regular session of the legislature. The committees to which the plans are referred shall report their recommendations to their respective houses no later than the forty-fifth day of the legislative session.

This language would seem to give legislators another session in which to pass new maps, but the language of 5-3-93 mandates that a plan be passed this year.  (The statutory scheme seems to contemplate that the maps would have been drawn last year and voted on no later than this year.)  The problem 5-3-103 holds for Republicans is in the second sentence.  The 45th day of the legislative session was February 16, which was the deadline for making requests that general bills and constitutional amendments be drafted.  On that day, the House was busy tabling the motion to reconsider on the ALEC-style "Sunshine" Act, and the Senate was busy welcoming foreign investors interested in opening charter schools.

So with no maps voted on by the committees 14 days before sine die (the last day of the session), the new Republican leadership in the Legislature may be on thinning legal ice with regard to redistricting.  But as this group has shown time and time again, laws are for Democrats.

Charter schools bill not brought up in House; signal that Republican leadership does not have the votes

The new charter schools language inserted into HB 1152 by Sen. Gray Tollison (R - Oxford) sits on the House calendar for a vote on concurrence.  It was not brought up today, which means the House Republican leadership doesn't have the votes to pass it.  While today is a deadline day, this bill will not die until April 26, as it is a general bill on for concurrence.  (See timetable for processing legislation.)

Now here's the interesting part: the new redistricting maps have to be announced 15 days prior to sine die, which is before the deadline to vote on concurrence.  That means it may be difficult to continue to twist arms on the charter schools bill via redistricting.

A hint that new legislative reapportionment maps will be released tomorrow morning?

Prior to recess in both the House and the Senate today, announcements were made in both chambers that the Joint Committee on Reapportionment Redistricting (the committee of House and Senate members who handle drawing the new legislative maps) would meet at 8:30 a.m. tomorrow morning.

Everyone has been expecting new maps to be released very soon.  If they aren't released tomorrow, perhaps we will get an idea of when.  (To catch up on redistricting, read Redistricting past and future; a look at where we've been and where we may be headed.)

And then the circus really begins.

Redistricting past and future; a look at where we've been and where we may be headed (maps included)

Most followers of this blog will recall last year's epic redistricting battle.  There were two plans unveiled in the Senate, one by the Senate Reapportionment Committee and one by surrogates of then-Lt. Gov. Phil Bryant (R).  In the House, the House Reapportionment Committee passed a map which was passed by the full House, and now-Speaker Philip Gunn (R - Clinton) failed to pass a "One Percent Plan", developed by the Mississippi Republican Party.  The Senate Reapportionment Committee plan passed the Senate and House, but the Senate refused to pass the House Reapportionment Committee plan, and the whole thing wound up in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi before a three-judge panel.  The panel punted on the issue, following the reasoning pushed by Robert Gibbs and Matt Allen, attorneys for Secretary of State Delbert Hosemann (R).

Well, word is beginning to spread at the Capitol that the 2012 redistricting battle may be about to begin....

Rob McDuff moves to withdraw as counsel for House Elections Committee

In an expected move, Rob McDuff has moved to withdraw as counsel for the House Elections Committee. Here's the Motion:

McDuff Motion to Withdraw

The Philip Gunn redistricting plan of 2011 and Tommy Taylor

Most readers of the site will recall the redistricting battle of 2011, and the plan that Speaker nominee Rep. Philip Gunn (R-Clinton) proposed the following plan on the House floor:

MSGOP House Plan Map

As we head into this next legislative session, redistricting will be one of the hottest topics. It will be interesting to see whether or not Rep. Gunn rolls out the same plan he introduced last year. If so, the first person that needs to worry is newly-elected Republican Rep. Tommy Taylor. He doesn't have plans to move to the Oxford, at least insofar as I know. But his district, District 28, is sure headed that direction under the Gunn plan.

***BREAKING*** - NEW CONGRESSIONAL MAP RELEASED

The new congressional map

Here are the other documents released by the Court tonight concerning this map:

The Order
Analysis of Factors Considered in Drafting the Plan
District Statistics Report
Core Constituencies Report
Plan Components Report

Secretary of State Hosemann flubs press release on redistricting appeal

As you probably know by now, the NAACP has filed its Notice of Appeal in the legislative redistricting case of NAACP v. Haley Barbour, et al. Accordingly, Secretary of State Hosemann emailed a press release condemning the NAACP's stance on the issue. The email contains the following line:

Now, the NAACP and the Mississippi Democratic Party have appealed the decision to the United States Supreme Court.

The problem is, of course, that the Mississippi Democratic Party hasn't appealed anything.

NAACP files Notice of Appeal in NAACP v. Haley Barbour, et al

In a move that I'd been told weeks ago was coming, the NAACP filed its Notice of Appeal on Tuesday. It will be interesting to see how it goes from here. There is the possibility, of course, that the entirety of the 2011 legislative elections could be thrown into chaos.

h/t Yallpolitics.com for the document.

Hinds County redistricting goes south, elections to be held under old lines

As mentioned here yesterday, the Department of Justice has refused to clear the Hinds County redistricting plan in time to allow for elections under the new lines. Here's WJTV's coverage of the matter and its effect on local attorney Micah Dutro, who is running for Justice Court Judge.

***BREAKING*** - Hinds County redistricting not cleared by US DoJ?

Apparently there's been some sort of goof up with respect to Hinds County redistricting being cleared by the Department of Justice, and that means the candidates will be (barring court intervention) running under the old lines. No word yet on why the DoJ did not approve the new lines by June 1.

This news is breaking this afternoon, and details are very sparse. WJTV may be the one to break this story tonight, so keep your eye on them.

Clarion-Ledger, Sid Salter chime in on the redistricting decision, see Democrats boosted by ruling

The Clarion-Ledger has an editorial up on the redistricting ruling, and Sid Salter has a column dedicated to it as well. Both see the ruling as favorable to Democrats.

Here's the key portion of the Clarion-Ledger editorial:

Political insiders now are assessing which party the ruling benefits. Ironically, it could increase Democratic influence in the Senate, where the Republican leadership under Lt. Gov. Phil Bryant had thrown a wrench into the redistricting process. The House was divided and remains competitively so, depending on several factors. (Emphasis added.)

And here's the part of Salter's that's on point:

Why would the NAACP and the Democrats decide to live with the outcome of the 2011 election held under the old districts despite the admitted malapportionment of the current districts? Because the outcome is likely to produce a House that's under Democratic control. (Emphasis added.)

A few Republicans who would have benefited from the Joint Committee plans

In an earlier post, I mentioned that the Joint Committee plans were incumbent protection plans. Republican legislators who would have received much needed help under the Joint Committee plans include, but are not limited to, Rep. Russ Nowell, Rep. Greg Snowden, Rep. Bill Denny, Rep. Margaret Rogers, Sen. Buck Clarke, Sen. Lydia Chassanoil, Sen. Briggs Hopson, and Sen. Nolan Mettetal. We'll see how these incumbents fair this November.

What the redistricting order means

The reactions to yesterday's ruling were an amazing display of human conditioning run amuck. Republicans and right-wingers in the blogosphere, had already processed the Court's "inclination order", and were expecting what they believed to be the worst case scenario. When that didn't happen, they thought that this was something less than a win for Democrats.

Here's what really happened:

Gov. Barbour and the MSGOP argued that the Court should draw its own plan, which could have been disastrous to Democrats in the House. At first, it appeared that their plan would be to ask to run under the old lines, and then seek a second election next year. That appears to be their fall back position this morning, given Gov. Barbour's comment regarding a second election. A reading of the Court's opinion, however, doesn't indicate that a second election is likely. In this respect and many others, this is a far, far different ruling than Watkins v. Mabus.

Many Democrats and more than a handful of Republicans would have loved to have seen the Joint Committee plans enacted. (The Joint Committee plans were incumbent protection plans, after all.) That was nothing but an unlikely dream scenario prior to the Court handing down its "inclination order" on April 28th. After April 28th, though, it seemed as if the dream scenario was about to be made real. However, yesterday the Court didn't follow its inclination and instead chose to permit elections under the current lines. That's not exactly a "loss" for a party that's won a majority of House seats under these lines twice already, and was beating back an effort by the Governor and MSGOP to have the federal courts draw the lines. By the way, Democrats won a majority of House seats in two years when Haley Barbour was at the top of the Republican ticket.

Now, I'm not a fan of the damage running under the old lines will do to the "one man, one vote" legal principle. But consider the raw politics at play here: Which districts are now "packed" as a result of this ruling? Rural, Democrat-leaning districts or suburban, Republican-leaning districts?

So, is it really over? Or will there be an appeal by the MSGOP, Gov. Barbour, or the NAACP?

One question left out there as a result of today's ruling from the three judge panel is whether or not any party will seek appellate review.  I imagine that question will be answered rather quickly, as the qualifying deadline is fast approaching.  I'll keep an ear to the ground to see if an appeal is filed.

****BREAKING*** - ORDER FILED. 2011 LEGISLATIVE RACES WILL BE RUN IN EXISTING DISTRICTS

Here's the Order.

This is a big win for Democrats, as it preserves their majority in the House.  The Republican strategy of pushing the redistricting battle to the courts in order to get more favorable districts has failed.