Politics

Court Ruling Spurs Backers’ Hopes for Redistricting Changes

Published

11 years ago

June 30, 2015

New interns run with a decision across the plaza of the Supreme Court in Washington, Monday June 29, 2015. On Monday, the court upheld Arizona congressional districts drawn by an independent commission and rejected a constitutional challenge from Republican lawmakers and upheld the use of a controversial drug in lethal injection executions Monday, as two dissenting justices said for the first time that they think it’s “highly likely” that the death penalty itself is unconstitutional. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin)

ALAN FRAM, Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — Groups hoping to squeeze partisan politics out of how states shape congressional districts are hailing a Supreme Court decision that lets independent commissions, not legislatures, draw those lines.

But Republicans say Monday’s 5-4 decision upholding Arizona’s independent redistricting commission will have little nationwide impact. And history shows that past efforts to persuade voters to change how states shape districts have had mixed results.

Proponents of shifting redistricting from state legislatures to independent bodies say they’ll rely in part on the same technique Arizona used: Initiatives, which let voters put questions on the ballot, usually after gathering signatures on petitions.

“The current system allows politicians to choose their voters, rather than allowing voters to choose their elected officials,” said Lloyd Leonard, advocacy director for the League of Women Voters, which filed a brief backing the commission.

From 1904 to 2001, there were 39 statewide ballot initiatives on how legislative boundaries are configured, and the voters have approved only 15, according data from the Initiative and Referendum Institute at the University of Southern California law school. Most addressed state legislative lines.

That underscores the difficulty of approving those changes and how infrequently such questions come before voters. Twenty-four states allow ballot initiatives, according to the institute.

While that opens the door for many states to consider redistricting commissions, “That door wasn’t exactly swinging wildly before this case came up,” said Thomas Mann, a congressional scholar at the liberal-leaning Brookings Institution who submitted a brief supporting commissions.

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a new case in coming months on whether the drawing of state legislative lines by Arizona’s redistricting commission was constitutional.

With the GOP’s current House majority aided by its domination of congressional line-drawing in many states, some Republicans conceded that reducing that power could hurt them but would be hard for opponents to achieve.

“It’s a sweeping decision that lays the groundwork, but the work still has to be done” by advocates of independent commissions, said GOP strategist Sean Noble. “And whether they have the time, money or will has yet to be determined.”

Others doubted that commissions would actually remove partisanship from the once-a-decade process of shaping congressional districts.

The commissions “could be used to shield or really cover what is actually the same partisan politics,” said Michael T. Morley, attorney for the conservative Coolidge-Reagan Foundation, which wrote a brief opposing the Arizona commission.

Kathay Feng, national redistricting director for the liberal Common Cause, said efforts to use initiatives to alter how district boundaries are drawn are under way in Illinois, Michigan and Ohio. In three other states, supporters are working through the legislature: Indiana, Maryland and North Carolina, she said.

House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, “believes redistricting decisions are best made by the people’s representatives in state legislatures — not by some unelected, unaccountable board of bureaucrats,” said Boehner press secretary Olivia Hnat.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., backed the court decision and said Congress should set standards so state redistricting commissions “reflect the diversity of their states and communities.”

In Monday’s ruling, the justices rejected a challenge by Arizona’s Republican-led legislature to the state’s independent commission, which voters established by ballot initiative in 2000.

The legislators argued that the Constitution reserves the power to draw district lines to state legislatures, not a commission created by initiative. That argument was rejected by the court’s four liberal justices plus Anthony Kennedy, a frequent swing voter.

“The invention of the initiative was in full harmony with the Constitution’s conception of the people as the font of governmental power,” Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote.

Led by Chief Justice John Roberts, the dissenters said the majority relied on “disconnected observations about direct democracy, a contorted interpretation of an irrelevant statute and naked appeals to public policy.”

The decision left the status quo intact for Arizona and 12 other states that have commissions with varying roles in drawing congressional lines.

Overall, Republicans have a 246-188 House majority, plus a vacancy in one GOP-leaning district.

Analysts attribute part of that advantage to Democrats’ concentration in dense urban areas. But it also reflects district lines Republicans drew after making major gains in 2010 state elections. In 2012, GOP House candidates got 1.4 million fewer votes than Democrats but won a 33-seat majority.

The GOP controls the governorship and legislature of 24 states, including Nebraska’s officially nonpartisan legislature. Seven states are run by Democrats and 19 are split, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Related Topics:congressional districts gerrymandering redistricting supreme court

Up Next

Maryland Moves to End Confederate Flag Plates

Don't Miss

Lawmakers Introduce Bill to Restore Voting Rights Act

Oakland Post

Click to comment

Activism

Oakland Post: Week of July 1 – 7, 2026

The printed Weekly Edition of the Oakland Post: Week of July 1 – 7, 2026

Published

4 days ago

July 5, 2026

Oakland Post

To enlarge your view of this issue, use the slider, magnifying glass icon or full page icon in the lower right corner of the browser window.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Activism

NPRC Joins National Grand Jury Proceedings Seeking Accountability, Constitutional Restoration

Organizers state that testimony will explore historical and political developments that they believe have contributed to the expansion of corporate influence over public institutions and governmental decision-making. Participants are expected to discuss concerns regarding constitutional governance, individual liberties, property rights, and the protection of vulnerable populations, including seniors and persons with disabilities.

Published

2 weeks ago

June 26, 2026

Oakland Post

Photo by Billie Powers.

Special to The Post

The National Probate Reform Coalition (NPRC) has joined Toll and Roll and a growing coalition of advocacy organizations, victims, whistleblowers, and citizen groups in support of a nationally broadcast People’s Grand Jury proceeding scheduled for July 1 and July 7.

Organizers describe the event as a public forum designed to examine allegations of government abuse, judicial misconduct, legislative failures, and the erosion of constitutional protections affecting millions of Americans.

The proceedings will feature testimony from victims, families, advocates, and organizations from across the country who contend they have experienced harm through government actions, institutional neglect, and failures of oversight.

According to organizers, the People’s Grand Jury will focus on concerns involving probate courts, guardianships, conservatorships, child welfare systems, property rights, civil liberties, and what participants view as a growing disconnect between government institutions and the constitutional rights of the people they are sworn to serve.

NPRC is participating because many of the issues being examined mirror the concerns raised by advocates, victims, and families who have participated in its monthly town halls. For years, families have reported cases involving exploitation of elders, questionable guardianships, estate depletion, denial of due process, and a lack of meaningful oversight within probate court systems.

“This proceeding gives victims and advocates an opportunity to place their experiences on the public record,” said Tanya Dennis, lead facilitator of NPRC. “For too long, families have struggled to have their voices heard regarding elder abuse, probate exploitation, and government inaction. This forum allows those stories to be shared before a national audience.”

In keeping with principles of transparency and fairness, invitations have been extended to legislators, members of the judiciary, law enforcement representatives, and other public officials who may wish to respond to concerns raised during the proceedings or defend actions taken by their respective institutions.

One of the primary outcomes sought by organizers is public consideration and support for the People’s Remedy and Restoration Act, a proposed legislative framework that advocates believe would strengthen oversight, increase accountability, provide remedies for victims of governmental abuse, and restore constitutional protections.

The proceedings are expected to be broadcast nationally, providing citizens throughout the United States an opportunity to observe testimony, review evidence presented, and participate in an ongoing conversation regarding government accountability and the protection of individual rights.

Advocates hope the hearings will encourage meaningful dialogue, legislative reform, and renewed public engagement in the democratic process.

Individuals, organizations, public officials, and members of the media interested in attending or obtaining access information may contact the organizers at tollandroll2025@gmail.com.

As Americans continue to debate the future of constitutional governance, judicial accountability, and the protection of vulnerable citizens, the July proceedings are expected to serve as a significant forum for public testimony and civic engagement. For more information, go to https://tollandroll.com

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Activism

Local Civil Rights Attorney, Activist Walter Riley Reveals Life Lessons from 70 Years in the Movement

Widely known in Oakland for his unifying leadership on issues of social justice and human rights, Riley is also recognized for his famous son, Raymond “Boots” Riley, a rap artist, political activist, and successful filmmaker, whose latest film, “I Love Boosters,” is now in theaters and capturing national attention.

Published

2 weeks ago

June 26, 2026

Oakland Post

Walter Riley. Courtesy photo.

By Ken Epstein

Prominent civil rights attorney and activist Walter Riley recently went on radio station KPFA 94.1 to discuss his new book co-authored with local veteran organizer Jesse Strauss: “Civil Rights and Structural Attacks: Conversations with Walter Riley.”

Born in North Carolina, Riley has lived in San Francisco, Chicago, and Detroit, but his longtime home is Oakland, California.

Over the years, he was a leader in the South against Jim Crow, participated as a student in the historic 1968 San Francisco State University strike that created Black Studies and Ethnic Studies in the U.S. and scored victories in the fight for open college admissions.

He was also a labor organizer and was involved in early Black Panther Party formations, anti-war protests, and was a leader of the Progressive Labor Party, a pro-Mao, Marxist Leninist party.

In an interview on KPFA’s “Upfront” with host Brian Edwards-Tiekert on June 18, he discussed some of his formative experiences, born in 1944 to a family of sharecroppers who worked on a tobacco farm near Durham, North Carolina.

“I came from a farming family, the ninth child of 11 children,” Riley said. “My mom and dad got married as teenagers, and they were together for their entire lives. Growing up in this large family, we had to deal with various aspects of what it meant to live in an economically depressed area with parents who had come through what they called “Hoover times” (the Great Depression) in the South.

“They were proud of every one of their children when they took some stand, to develop and show some sense of dignity,” he said.

In his neighborhood, slavery was not a distant memory. There are many people “who knew firsthand what it was to have family members that had lived as enslaved people and lived in communities where enslaved people had lived.

“(Under tenant farming), the landowner negotiated for the entire family: the farmer, the wife, the children – everybody was involved on the farm. Kids were often engaged. We had to shovel, hoe tobacco to keep the weeds from taking over, to make sure that tobacco worms didn’t eat up the tobacco. If a child was old enough to plow, they would walk behind a horse or mule and plow a field, working from sunup to sundown,” he said.

The houses did not have indoor bathrooms, running water or electricity. “A lot of the names in the Black community were the same names as these slave owners. We could see the names of folks on the streets, street names of people who had enslaved people, and they were symbols to me of a world that did not see me as a human being, that has not treated my ancestors as humans, has treated us as chattel to be sold, to be owned, to be property,” Riley said

“When we were counted by our government, we were counted only for the purposes of allowing white people, white men, to have a vote.”

By 1950, when he was 6 years old, his family moved to another house, leaving tenant farming. His father took a job in construction.

“My parents wanted the younger kids to have education,” he continued. “The older kids had to work on the farms. By the time I came along, I was the second child born in a hospital. “My parents looked forward to younger kids to have more sense of independence from the economic and social depravities that they saw around them.”

Watching television, he became aware of the suffering under Jim Crow, including the lynching in Mississippi of Emmett Till in 1955 and Mack Parker in 1959.

When he was 13, he joined a picket line in town in front of a variety store chain that did not hire Black people and became active in the Civil Rights Movement. By time he was in high school, he had become a leader in the local chapter of the NAACP and met Malcolm X and later Medgar Evers, leaders who were both assassinated.

Married and with a child, he moved with his family in the early 1960s to San Francisco, attending San Francisco State University while working full time.

He participated in the San Francisco State University strike, the longest student strike in U.S. history, where students and their supporters prevailed in the face of mass arrests and daily violent police attacks.

While many people remember the strike for its historic victory – the creation of the first Black Studies and Ethnic Studies programs in the country. “But open admissions was the thing,” he said. “Open admissions had to do with people being able to go to school for free. People should be able to go to school just because they come here and say, ‘I want to go to school. I want an education’ (because) we live in a rich country.”

Studying Marxism, including dialectical materialism, he gradually began to understand structure of the system that needs to be changed, he said. “It requires a lot of study, and it still does.”