February 9, 2022
The MICRC adopted their final maps on December 28, but the redistricting process isn’t over. Several groups have brought lawsuits (as expected), and those will be resolved in the coming weeks or months. More information on the lawsuits is below. Meanwhile, under the Constitution, the MICRC must issue a report by February 26 to show its homework. Among other things, the Commission must explain how the maps meet the constitutional criteria, including complying with the Voting Rights Act, respecting the state’s diverse COIs, and passing tests for partisan fairness.
- ICYMI: VNP Co-Hosts Webinar Assessing Michigan’s New Process and Maps
- Update on Current Lawsuits Challenging the MICRC’s Newly Adopted Maps
ICYMI: VNP Co-Hosts Webinar Assessing Michigan’s New Process and Maps
On January 19, VNP co-hosted Michigan Redistricting: A Model for the Nation? We proudly co-sponsored this event with Michigan State University’s Institute for Public Policy & Social Research, and The University of Michigan’s Ford School.
Moderated by Matt Grossman of MSU’s IPPSR.
Featured panelists included redistricting expert and author David Daley, Dr. Jon Eguia of MSU, VNP’s Executive Director Nancy Wang, and the MICRC’s Communication’s Director, Edward Woods.
Watch here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cz4EcWgfZqI
If you’re looking for an in-depth expert panel discussion on the performance of Michigan’s first Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission and their newly adopted maps, this is the event for you.
Update on Lawsuits Challenging the MICRC’s Maps
With so much political power at stake, redistricting cycles inevitably involve litigation, and Michigan’s is no exception. As of Feb 9, three lawsuits have been filed, two in state court and one in federal court. One case has been dismissed and the other two are pending.
Banerian v. Benson et al. (W.D. Mich.) (federal court) (active)
This GOP-led lawsuit challenges the Congressional map only, claiming the map does not meet the federal Constitution’s equal population requirement. They also claim that “COI” under the amendment really means county and municipal boundaries and the map impermissibly breaks apart those political subdivisions.
- VNP’s position: Because Plaintiffs are making arguments that conflict with the language of the amendment itself, the Campaign Legal Center filed a motion to intervene on VNP’s behalf to allow us to defend the amendment. Our motion is just a request; the Court has to approve it for us to be part of the lawsuit. If it does, then VNP would be a party just like any other party with the same rights and opportunities to argue our case, like we did in the two federal lawsuits brought after Prop 2 passed by Tony Daunt and the Michigan GOP that we intervened in – and won – last year.
- At stake: The case is being heard on an expedited schedule because of the approaching 2022 primary and general elections. The GOP is seeking a preliminary injunction, which would freeze the MICRC Congressional map and prevent it from being used in an election until the lawsuit is over. They’ve included in their filing an alternative map they want to be used instead. Under the amendment though, the Court simply does not have the power to force the MICRC to adopt any particular map. At most, the Court could order the MICRC to go back and make tweaks in time for a map to be used in 2022. The GOP is also seeking a court decision that would fundamentally change the meaning of the language voters adopted. They floated this idea before and we addressed them in an op-ed in July 2021.
- Venue: U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan (Grand Rapids) (federal court)
- Status and important dates: 3-judge panel assigned to the case. Parties have to file briefs and then the judges will listen to oral arguments at 3pm on March 16 in Grand Rapids.
League of Women Voters of Michigan v. MICRC (Mich.) (state court) (active)
This lawsuit challenges the state House maps only, claiming they do not meet high enough levels of partisan fairness.
- VNP’s position: The MICRC must balance many competing and often conflicting things when drawing maps. Because the process is now transparent, parties can follow and critique the process. We respect the right of voters to challenge the maps using the legal process laid out in the constitution. But we are not intervening because unlike the GOP-led federal lawsuit, LWV-MI’s arguments would not undermine the will of the people by asking the court to rewrite the constitution.
- At stake: If LWV-MI is successful, the Court could order the MICRC to go back and make tweaks to the House map in time for the map to be used in 2022.
- Venue: Michigan Supreme Court
- Status and important dates: No answer to complaint or scheduling orders from the Court yet.
Detroit Caucus et. al v. MICRC (Mich.) (state court) (dismissed)
This lawsuit challenged all three maps – state House, state Senate, and Congressional – claiming they violated the Voting Rights Act because they diluted black voting power.
- VNP’s position: The VRA is an exceedingly complicated, evolving area of law, and a VRA analysis is only so good as it has election data to support it. Here, both the MICRC and plaintiffs were hampered by a lack of primary election data from Detroit. Regardless of the legal arguments, however, for the public to have confidence in the maps and the redistricting process, It’s critical for voters and the Commission to have open conversations about what’s at stake for community members, what the VRA requires and what other considerations must factor in–including the need to avoid racial gerrymandering–and why the Commission made the mapping decisions they did. Transparency is key. VNP will be including recommendations in our evaluation report on how the Commission can better navigate these important issues in the next cycle.
- Venue: Michigan Supreme Court
- Status: Case dismissed on February 3rd, 2022.
