Alabama, Alaska, Arizona and Arkansas Redistricting Previews

Alabama

State Legislative Lines Drawn By: Legislature (Senate 8D-26R, House 27D-76R)
Congressional Lines Drawn By: Legislature
Congressional Districts: 7
Gubernatorial Veto: Yes (Republican)
State Supreme Court: 9-0 Republican
Deadlines: January 28, 2022 Candidate Filing Deadline

As you can see above, Alabama’s process will be controlled by Republicans, with Democrats having little leverage. The one bit of leverage that the minority does have is what remains of the Voting Rights Act (VRA)⁽¹⁾.

In Alabama the balance of power could be significantly altered, maybe even breaking the Republican supermajority through litigation with the argument that maps should not be drawn to overly concentrate Black voters in too few districts. But that would be dependent on favorable court rulings. Federal redistricting reform that requires states to draw proportional districts⁽²⁾ is a more likely scenario. It’s possible to draw a State Senate map with at least 12 districts that have majority nonwhite populations but it’s unclear whether a court would force Alabama to do so without redistricting reform. 

And with Alabama retaining 7 congressional districts it can easily draw two that have Black voter populations above 50% while splitting a bare minimum of counties, one centered in a rural stretch across the Southern portion of the state and Montgomery with a tendril down to Mobile, the other mostly based in Birmingham but taking in rural areas as well.

But as with state legislative districts, the real question comes down to the VRA. Will America’s conservative federal judiciary actually enforce the VRA’s obligations to draw legislative districts that give nonwhite voters a chance to elect their own representatives? There’s a real risk that this provision gets more narrowly construed this cycle, even in spite of the advances made before the courts were filled by Trump appointments.

In the meantime, with the evidentiary record being built, testimony from Alabamans about what fair maps would look like before legislative committees could have an impact.

Alaska

Congressional Districts: 1
State Legislative Lines Drawn By: Political Commission (5 members, 4 chosen by Republicans, 1 by Democrats)
State Supreme Court: 4 Republicans, 1 Independent
Deadlines: Initial Maps due within 30 days of Census data delivery (likely end of October), Final Maps due within 90 days (likely end of 2021).

Republicans will have control over the commission drawing lines, but Alaska Republicans don’t always act on purely partisan lines. Alaska is the only state that Trump carried where Democrats have a say in control of a state legislative chamber. That owes to a relationship with a group of breakaway Republicans interested in governing and not in their right-wing governor’s ideological crusade.  So there is some hope that commission Republicans are willing to put the principle of representative government ahead of their party label in drawing new legislative maps.

Arizona

State Legislative Lines Drawn By: Independent Commission (2 Democrats, 2 Republicans, 1 Independent)
Congressional Lines Drawn By: Same Independent Commission
Congressional Districts: 9
State Supreme Court: 6-0 Republican
Deadlines: April 4, 2022 Filing Deadline

Arizona’s independent commission had a relatively fair outcome after its 2011 cycle: its districts accurately reflected a conservative-leaning state that was evenly divided by the end of the decade. But the commission was also racked with infighting and right wing ideologues almost sued it out of existence.⁽³⁾ The commission’s current independent chairperson is well aware of this history. Unfortunately, it seems like her attempt to fend off bad faith attacks this cycle was appointing a longtime Republican operative as her top staffer and hiring Republican mapping consultants.

Staffing is not destiny but it shows that even well-functioning independent commissions are not above being buffaloed by special interests that don’t want fair districts. One way to undermine the mission is to staff it with partisans whose output is at cross purposes with the people’s. So Arizona is at a higher risk than one would expect of implementing Republican-leaning maps.

So Arizonans need to remain vigilant of undue special interest influence on the commission to avoid bad outcomes. Luckily the commission has regularly scheduled meetings that you can attend on Zoom, you see the latest schedule for them here.

As for what to expect from fair maps, almost anything is fair (or not) game. State law is explicit that previous maps should not be used as a guide for the next cycle. But regardless of the outcome, there should be competitive seats in the Phoenix area under the state legislative map again, while the sprawling 1st Congressional District will likely remain up for grabs by either party. The risk is that Republicans have one of their own on the commission putting his thumb on the scale for their candidates.

Arkansas

Congressional Districts: 4
State Legislative Lines Drawn By: Political Commission (3-0 Republican)
Congressional Lines Drawn By: State Legislature (Senate 7D-27R-1I, House 24D-76R)
Gubernatorial Veto: Yes (Republican)
State Supreme Court: Nominally nonpartisan but at least 5 of 7 justices have GOP ties

Arkansas requires the state budget be passed with a ¾ supermajority, which means Democrats are on the precipice of being able to have a say in the process. All they need to do is flip two seats in the House or get the independent state senator (a former Republican disgusted with the party’s turn in the Trump era) to side with them. Republicans will control drawing the maps and may try to pack Democrats into fewer than ¼ of the districts.

As for the congressional map, Arkansas likely cannot draw a congressional seat that has a more than 50% Black population in a constitutionally permissible manner. It can, however, draw a district that has a more than 50% combined nonwhite population. The Voting Rights Act (VRA) has been interpreted to require drawing districts that have close to 50% of a particular nonwhite population (i.e. Black or Latino), but such protection has not been broadly extended to potential districts that have a 50% nonwhite population but where white voters are still a plurality.

Next Up: California-Delaware

(1)  Broadly the VRA requires that when you can draw a district that allows voters of color to have a voice in choosing legislative representatives you should.  There have been a variety of ways this requirement has been enforced in the last 50+ years.  You could probably do an entire blog series on that but for now we’ll just focus on the impacts on this year’s redistricting as they come up. One of the big developments in the country since lines were last redrawn following the 2010 Census is that in 2019, the Supreme Court implicitly acknowledged that making districts more than 55% Black may be unconstitutionally packing those voters, diluting their influence in other districts. While the Supreme Court has gotten more conservative since that ruling, a 63% Black district (as the 7th Congressional District in Alabama is today) could be held unconstitutional because it prevents Black voters from making their voice heard in adjacent districts.  We will see how this plays out in the next round of litigation.

(2)  HR 1 as it’s written today would only apply to Congress, not state legislatures.  But there’s no reason Congress can’t pass a law requiring state legislatures to draw proportional maps.  The constitutional basis for such is slightly more open to bad faith right wing judicial attacks (Congress’s authority would be based on the 14th and 15th Amendments and not the Time, Place and Manner clause) but still worth pursuing to ensure states are governed equitably in the future.

(3) Speaking of the commission being sued out of existence, Anthony Kennedy and Ruth Bader Ginsburg voted to save the commission from being determined unconstitutional based on bad faith textual arguments. Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Comey Barrett are not upgrades over them on either voting rights or accepting bad faith textual arguments. So it is possible that the Supreme Court declares independent commissions unconstitutional the next time the issue comes before them. But even for this court ignoring stare decisis from a case that was determined just 6 years ago would be pretty egregious, especially because when it later said federal courts can’t do anything about partisan gerrymandering it told states to address the issue by adopting independent commissions. I’m not saying the Supreme Court isn’t above creating a constitutional Catch-22 making it impossible to address partisan gerrymandering, but it’d be so egregious that I try not to despair and just focus on what I can do.