On December 12, the highest state court in New York, the Court of Appeals, issued an opinion in In the Matter of Hoffmann v New York State Independent Redistricting Commission, no. 90. Here is the decision. The majority opinion is 33 pages and the dissent is 27 pages. The vote was 4-3.

The decision says that when a special master drew new districts in 2022, that was just a temporary remedy that should only apply to the 2022 election. The majority therefore concludes that the Independent Redistricting Commission should again draw new districts, for use in 2024 through 2030. The IRC has until February 28, 2024, to draw new districts.

New York’s constitution bans partisan gerrymandering, but the state’s procedures are not well-suited to accomplish that goal. The “Independent Redistricting Commission” is not composed of neutral, apolitical citizens, as is the case in some other states. Instead it must have an exact partisan balance between Democrats and Republicans, and if it deadlocks (which is easy to do), then the legislature plays a dominant role in drawing the districts. In 2022 the IRC failed, and one wonders if it will be able to succeed when it tries again.

Here is a summary posted today by Derek Muller.

State’s ballot access restrictive, contrary to Sen. Daniels’ claim

In response to M. Scott Carter’s Dec. 3, 2023, otherwise excellent piece (“Why does one legislator have a quest to protect Oklahoma’s initiative and referendum law?”), we respectfully disagree with Sen. Julie Daniels’ assertion that “it’s not as difficult to get on the ballot in Oklahoma as it is in other states.” On the contrary, our state has the nation’s most restrictive ballot access requirements. When you make an already costly process even more difficult, it allows only the big-monied interests, rather than grassroots citizen groups, to qualify.

Oklahoma’s process includes several benchmarks which separate legitimate ballot measures from unpopular or ill-conceived ones. At least seven unique obstacles must be successfully navigated before a state question can appear before voters.

Moreover, of the states that allow for initiated constitutional amendments, Oklahoma ties Arizona for the highest per capita signature requirement. Oklahoma’s 90-day signature gathering period is the nation’s shortest. Only Massachusetts has a shorter timeframe, 60 days, but that’s for indirect amendments that must also be approved by its Legislature, not an apples-to-apples comparison. For example, Arizona, Illinois, Oregon and South Dakota allow two years to gather signatures. Ohio has no time limit.

Daniels’ Senate Bill 518 would make this process even more difficult. Some lawmakers think it’s easy to qualify ballot measures. It’s not. Furthermore, creating any supermajority requirement kills the process entirely. Oklahoma’s constitutional framers anticipated these moments — legislative aims at power consolidation — and believed the people’s rights should be preserved and protected. We believe that, too. Let’s keep direct democracy accessible to all.

— Brendan Hoover, Oklahoma City