Thread by @mcpli

The redistricting provisions of the Freedom to Vote Act have a number of differences from the earlier For the People Act. Some of them are BIG. A thread 🧵 #fairmaps 1/

First, the partisan gerrymandering section now has a rebuttable presumption that a plan violates the anti-gerrymandering clause if certain metrics are met. A party can ask the court to determine whether the presumption has been triggered by filing a motion. #fairmaps 2/

If a party makes such motion, the court must hold a hearing within 15 days and conduct an assessment using the two most recent presidential and Senate elections in the state. #fairmaps 3/

If the court determines that the rebuttable presumption has been triggered, a state is *automatically* barred from using its map until the partisan gerrymandering claim can be litigated in full and the state successfully rebuts the presumption. #fairmaps 4/

If the case cannot be resolved in time for the next primary election, the court is directed to adopt an interim map and/or make adjustments to the primary schedule to allow for resolution of the claim. #fairmaps 5/

Then there are big changes to how redistricting cases get litigated. Cases could be brought *either* in the federal district court in the state capital OR in Washington DC, with the exception that partisan gerrymandering cases could *only* be brought in DC. #fairmaps 6/

Redistricting cases challenging a congressional plan on a statewide basis would continue to be heard by 3-judge panels under section 2284, BUT appeals would go to the DC Circuit instead of directly to SCOTUS. #fairmaps 7/

SCOTUS could hear redistricting cases on appeal from the DC Circuit but the appeal would be through the certiorari process rather than as an appeal under its mandatory jurisdiction. #fairmaps 8/

This would create an appellate structure similar to how patent appeals work. Cases get litigated in district courts all around the country but appeals are then funneled through the Federal Circuit in Washington. #fairmaps 9/

There are also a number of smaller but significant changes. One is a provision making clear states cannot use state criteria or policies (such as incumbent protection or preserving the cores of districts) as an excuse for non-compliance with the bill’s map rules. #fairmaps 10/

This is a perpetual fight in redistricting cases right now. States routinely defend discriminate maps with excuses like, we were just trying to ensure that districts are maximally compact or that we didn’t pair incumbents. #fairmaps 11/

So in short, a lot of things in the redistricting sections of the Freedom to Vote that weren’t in the FTPA. But there also is one omission: Commissions. #fairmaps 12/

The FTPA would have required states to use independent commissions to draw congressional maps. But the Freedom to Vote Act leaves that choice up to states - while imposing uniform rules on how they do it and strengthening remedies. #fairmaps 13/

Here’s our full memo analyzing the redistricting sections of the Freedom to Vote Act. brennancenter.org/sites/default/… #fairmaps 14/