Redistrict decision expected to ripple

27 states could face challenge on remaps

Rhonda Cook - Staff
Monday, February 16, 2004

The court decision last week on Georgia redistricting will have an effect on states across the nation, political and legislative experts predict.

Legal scholars and political scientists agree that the Georgia case establishes "new law" and eventually will require a reading by the U.S. Supreme Court.

"It put the buzz into the redistricting world that has reverberated beyond Georgia," said Tim Storey with the National Council of State Legislatures, based in Kentucky. Storey, the council's redistricting expert, said he "wouldn't be surprised" if more lawsuits are filed challenging state legislative maps on the same grounds.

"I guarantee that there are legislative staffs and legislators who are scrambling to have a look at their plans and saying, 'What does this Georgia decision mean for us?' "

A three-judge federal panel in Atlanta ruled Tuesday that statehouse Democrats tried to gain advantage by creating districts that varied too much in population. The party tried to spread Democratic votes over a greater number of smaller districts while cramming Republicans into larger but fewer districts.

The judges had strong words for the Georgia Legislature and the designs of its House and Senate districts.

"Where a state's reapportionment intrudes upon the fundamental right to vote for what can be characterized only as discriminatory and arbitrary reasons, it is our duty to step in," they wrote.

The judges gave the Legislature until March 1 to produce new maps for this year's elections, or they will do it.

Despite the objections of Republican Gov. Sonny Perdue, Democratic state Attorney General Thurbert Baker on Friday appealed the decision and asked for a stay. The judges will hold a hearing on that request Thursday.

Candidates for this year's legislative elections are scheduled to qualify starting April 26. Party primaries are to be held July 20, and the general election is Nov. 2.

Tuesday's decision came from a lawsuit filed more than a year ago by 29 Republicans claiming that the Democrats' maps, drawn in a special session in 2001, violated the one-person, one-vote constitutional doctrine.

Democrats used as a guide a 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision that said the population of legislative districts could deviate as much as 5 percent either way from the state average for all districts. That 10 percent range was considered a "safe harbor."

Under federal law, congressional districts must be exactly the same size but legislative districts had more latitude so map drawers could respect city and county lines, communities of interests and the desires of incumbents.

"The numbers largely speak for themselves, but the shapes of many of these districts and the resulting pairings [of incumbents in districts] indicate that there was an intent not only to aid Democratic incumbents in getting re-elected but also to oust many of their Republican incumbent counterparts," the judges wrote in their 91-page decision.

More than half of the states could have Georgia's problem, Storey said.

"There are 27 states that have legislative plans that are bumping up against the 10 percent safe harbor," he said. "All of us were out there telling people . . . you're safe under 10 percent. That was the message states and experts heard. So it comes as no surprise states used that 10 percent --- and some to gain a partisan edge.

"The law has changed on folks and called into question legislative plans all over the country," Storey said.

"The Supreme Court historically takes these cases," said Nathaniel Persily, a University of Pennsylvania law professor and an expert on voting rights and election reform.

The justices might require a full briefing or oral arguments, Persily said, or they could just summarily agree or disagree with the ruling of the lower court.

"It's extremely likely they will take it for full briefing and argument," Persily said.

The ruling in the Georgia case "underscores the importance of trying to zero out deviations," said Susan McManus, a University of South Florida political science professor and a redistricting expert.

"States are just perplexed about the whole redistricting arena," McManus said. "It's been that way since the inception. You think you're doing the right thing, and all of sudden there's a new angle. But when politics and the law collide, the reading of the law prevails."