The 2011 Redistricting Process -- Indiana

1. The 2011 Redistricting Process -- Indiana Virginia Martinez Legislative Staff Attorney Mexican American Legal Defense & Educational Fund

2. Founded in 1968 in San Antonio, Texas The nation�s leading nonprofit, Latino legal organization Chicago Office opened in 1980 Mission: to safeguard the rights of Latinos in the U.S. Performs its work through community education, public policy advocacy, and litigation

3. What we do Work in four Program Areas Political Access-Voting Rights Employment Immigration Education Also, we work on Language and Public Resource Equity Issues

4. What is �redistricting�?

5. Why re-draw district lines?

6. Constitutional mandate to redraw lines

7. And so�

8. Key redistricting dates

9. Why does redistricting matter?

10. Why does redistricting matter?

11. What is Gerrymandering:Manipulation of District Lines to Unduly Increase a group�s Political Power Term is inspired by Elbridge Gerry, Governor of Massachusetts who signed a redistricting plan ensuring his party�s domination of the state senate in 1812 This notable district became known as the �Gerrymander� after an artist added the details �One person one vote� and the Voting Rights Act are supposed to prevent gerrymandering, but it still exists

14. Who draws the lines in Indiana

15. �Where� starts with federal protections

16. Equal population � one person, one vote

17. The Voting Rights Act Voting Rights Act protects minorities when the lines could be drawn to give a minority community the opportunity to elect its candidate of choice, but the district lines instead split the community up into separate districts where its voting power is diluted. The court uses a �totality of the circumstances� test to determine if minority voters are adequately protected. It is OK, under the constitution, to consider race and ethnicity, among other factors, in drawing district lines around smaller populations of minorities Race and ethnicity just can�t �predominate� without a really good reason

18. Gingles* Factors To establish a VRA � 2 violation, you must prove: That the minority group is sufficiently large and geographically concentrated to make up a majority in a single-member district; That the minority group is politically cohesive�that is, it usually votes for the same candidate, and, That, in the absence of special circumstances, the white majority votes together to defeat the minority�s preferred candidate. * Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30 (1986)

19. The �Senate Factors� After demonstrating the three Gingles preconditions, the plaintiff must demonstrate that under the totality of the circumstances, minority voters have less opportunity to elect their candidate of choice. The �Senate Factors� are drawn from the Senate Judiciary Committee majority Report accompanying the bill that amended � 2

20. The extent of any history of official discrimination in the state or political subdivision that touched the right of the members of the minority group to register, to vote, or otherwise to participate in the democratic process; The extent to which voting in the elections of the state or political subdivision is racially polarized; The extent to which the state or political subdivision has used unusually large election districts, majority vote requirements, anti-single shot provisions, or other voting practices or procedures that may enhance the opportunity for discrimination against the minority group;

21. Senate Factors, cont. Additional factors that in some cases have had probative value as part of plaintiffs' evidence to establish a violation are: whether there is a significant lack of respon-siveness on the part of elected officials to the particularized needs of the members of the minority group. whether the policy underlying the state or political subdivision's use of such voting qualification, prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice or procedure is tenuous." S. Rep., at 28-29

22. Senate Factors require practical analysis �whether the political processes are �equally open� depends upon a searching practical evaluation of the �past and present reality,�� White v. Regester, 412 U.S. 755 (1973); see also Senate Report 30. �the ultimate conclusions about equality or inequality of opportunity were intended by Congress to be judgments resting on comprehensive, not limited, canvassing of relevant facts.� Johnson v. DeGrandy, 114 S.Ct. 2647, 2657 (1994)

23. Bottom Line: �Section 2 thus prohibits any practice or procedure that, �interact[ing] with social and historical condi-tions,� impairs the ability of a protected class to elect its candidate of choice on an equal basis with other voters.� Voinovich v. Quilter, 507 U.S. 146 (1993), quoting Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. at 47. Satisfying the Gingles preconditions is insufficient to win the case; you must prove a violation under the �totality of the circumstances� by demonstrating some combination of the Senate Factors

24. Minority representation Sadly, many techniques to deprive minorities of a meaningful vote. At-large: Many districts with multiple seats were kept as �at-large� districts. In these districts, the majority vote would predictably beat the minority vote for every seat. In this district, there are 20 (say) white voters and 16 minority voters. And the majority will win every time. Districts can improve the situation, but they don�t necessarily do so. One district-based technique is called �cracking�: split the minority community up so that its voting power is diluted. Here, each district has 5 white voters and 4 minority voters. In �packing�, the objective is to cram as many minorities as possible into one district, to limit minority power to that one over-full district. Minorities are �bleached� from the surrounding areas, leaving the white voters firmly in control. Sadly, many techniques to deprive minorities of a meaningful vote. At-large: Many districts with multiple seats were kept as �at-large� districts. In these districts, the majority vote would predictably beat the minority vote for every seat. In this district, there are 20 (say) white voters and 16 minority voters. And the majority will win every time. Districts can improve the situation, but they don�t necessarily do so. One district-based technique is called �cracking�: split the minority community up so that its voting power is diluted. Here, each district has 5 white voters and 4 minority voters. In �packing�, the objective is to cram as many minorities as possible into one district, to limit minority power to that one over-full district. Minorities are �bleached� from the surrounding areas, leaving the white voters firmly in control.

25. The Voting Rights Act

26. After federal law, add Indiana limitation

27. Other possible state limitations

29. A quick review

30. Why does redistricting matter?

31. Help connect the dots

32. Influencing redistricting (short-term)

33. Resources The Impact of Redistricting in Your Community: A Guide to Redistricting http://www.maldef.org/assets/pdf/Redistricting.pdf Brennan Center Guide to Redistricting http://brennan.3cdn.net/dbda15133afb14c05b_i4m6b40of.pdf