Senate Bill S1849B

                                
 
BILL NUMBER: S1849

SPONSOR: SKOUFIS
 
TITLE OF BILL:

An act to amend the municipal home rule law, in relation to the defi-
nition of "population" for purposes of providing  substantially  equal
weight  for the  population of that local government in the allocation
of representation  in the local legislative body

 
PURPOSE OR GENERAL IDEA OF BILL:

Relates to the definition of population for purposes of providing
substantially equal weight for the population of that local government
in the allocation of representation in the local legislative body

 
SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS:

Section 1: Amends clause (c.) of subparagraph 13 of subdivision 1 of
section 10 of the municipal home rule law to delete "citizens, or regis-
tered voters" as a basis for considering "population" for the purposes
              

of redistricting and apportionment. It leaves only "residents" as the
consideration for "population."

Section 3: Effective Date: Immediately

 
JUSTIFICATION:

The current state legislation left the ability for local municipal
districts to be drawn and re-apportioned based on not only on residents,
but citizenship status or registration. This is an oversight that must
be corrected.

There have been a series of historic United Supreme Court cases mandat-
ing that legislative districts should be drawn based on equal popu-
lation. This principal was applied to the United States Congress in
Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1 (1964). In Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S.533
(1964) the Court held that the Equal Protection Clause requires that the
seats in both houses of a bicameral state legislature must be appor-
tioned on a total population basis.

These cases made clear that representatives in a legislature represent
the entire population in a district: those of voting age and those who
are not; voters and non-voters; citizens and non-citizens. More recently
in Evenwel v. Abbott, 136 S.Ct;1120 (2016), plaintiffs challenged
Texas's 2011 redistricting scheme, arguing that its use of total popu-
lation violated the Equal Protection Clause and argued for districts
drawn by the number of voters. While "based on constitutional history,
precedent and practice reveal the infirmity of (Texas') claim" to redis-
trict based on the number of voters, the Court did not reach the issue
of whether a state could redistrict by using the number of voters, the
Court did state and reaffirmed that under the one-person, one-vote prin-
cipal, jurisdictions must design legislative districts with equal popu-
lation with a deviation of no more than 10% between the largest and
smallest districts. The Supreme Court held that its past opinions
confirmed that states may use total population in order to comply with
one person, one vote.


The standard of considering total population based on the census data is
the only fair way to redistrict and reapportion districts. This change
is necessary to avoid an unfair and unconstitutional result in the
future.

The State Legislature's redistricting is based on the total population
of residents. Counties and local governments should have no less of a
standard.

 
PRIOR LEGISLATIVE HISTORY:

2020 - Referred to Rules

Assembly

2020 - A10191 Referred to Local Governments

 
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

None

 
EFFECTIVE DATE:  This act shall take effect immediately.

                                
 
BILL NUMBER: S1849A

SPONSOR: SKOUFIS
 
TITLE OF BILL:

An act to amend the municipal home rule law, in relation to the defi-
nition of "population" for purposes of providing  substantially  equal
weight  for the  population of that local government in the allocation
of representation  in the local legislative body

 
PURPOSE OR GENERAL IDEA OF BILL:

Relates to the definition of population for purposes of providing
substantially equal weight for the population of that local government
in the allocation of representation in the local legislative body

 
SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS:

Section 1: Amends clause (c.) of subparagraph 13 of subdivision 1 of
section 10 of the municipal home rule law to delete "citizens, or regis-
tered voters" as a basis for considering "population" for the purpose of
              

redistricting. It leaves only "residents" as the consideration for
"population."

Section 3: Effective Date: Immediately

 
JUSTIFICATION:

The current state legislation left the ability for local municipal
districts to be drawn and reapportioned based on not only on residents,
but citizenship status or registration. This is an oversight that must
be corrected.

There have been a series of historic United Supreme Court cases mandat-
ing that legislative districts should be drawn based on equal popu-
lation. This principal was applied to the United States Congress in
Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1 (1964). In Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S.533
(1964) the Court held that the Equal Protection Clause requires that the
seats in both houses of a bicameral state legislature must be appor-
tioned on a total population basis.

These cases made clear that representatives in a legislature represent
the entire population in a district: those of voting age and those who
are not; voters and non-voters; citizens and noncitizens.

More recently in Evenwel v. Abbott, 136 S.Ct;1120 (2016), plaintiffs
challenged Texas's 2011 redistricting scheme, arguing that its use of
total population violated the Equal Protection Clause and argued for
districts drawn by the number of voters. While "based on constitutional
history, precedent and practice reveal the infirmity of (Texas') claim"
to redistrict based on the number of voters, the Court did not reach the
issue of whether a state could redistrict by using the number of voters,
the Court did state and reaffirmed that under the one-person, one-vote
principal, jurisdictions must design legislative districts with equal
population with a deviation of no more than 10% between the largest and
smallest districts. The Supreme Court held that its past opinions
confirmed that states may use total population in order to comply with
one person, one vote.

The standard of considering total population based on the census data is
the only fair way to redistrict. This change is necessary to avoid an
unfair and unconstitutional result in the future.

The State Legislature's redistricting is based on the total population
of residents. Counties and local governments should have no less of a
standard.

 
PRIOR LEGISLATIVE HISTORY:

2019-20: A10191 - referred to local governments

 
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

None

 
EFFECTIVE DATE:
This act shall take effect immediately.