Two federal VRA cases of note:

1. Georgia Public Service Commission election case, arguing that the at-large election method in the state constitution for the Public Service Commission violates the Voting Rights Act. Federal judge just ruled (1/24) against the state’s motion for a summary judgment, in favor of plaintiffs’ request for partial summary judgment. Georgia law holds that candidates for PSC run statewide but must live in their home districts.
2. Alabama congressional map struck down (1/24) by federal court (surprisingly consisting of two Trump and 1 Reagan/Clinton appointees) due to packing Black-majority areas into one district, ruling that Alabama could create two Black-majority districts (ruling in PDF). Huge implications for in-process Louisiana congressional map as well (maybe even South Carolina?). Alabama AG announced an appeal to SCOTUS on the ruling.

VRA Implications for Alabama, etc

It is already well-documented that Republicans and their judicial sycophants like John Roberts despise the Voting Rights Act when it comes to its pre-Shelby federal intervention powers, i.e., U.S. DOJ preclearance of legislative and congressional maps. What is less well-known is how Republicans see the VRA’s insistence on majority-minority representation in redistricting as a tool for packing and cracking districts to minimize Democratic-preference representation and protect Republican incumbents.

I’m not prepared to say what implications could arise if SCOTUS reverses the Northern District of Alabama ruling.

VRA Implications for Georgia PSC

On the PSC issue, if the court rules for the plaintiffs (and the decision survives SCOTUS), Georgia would join Mississippi, Louisiana, Montana, Nebraska and New Mexico in holding elections for PSC from voters of individual districts rather than statewide. Alabama, Arizona, Illinois, North Dakota, Oklahoma and South Dakota all hold statewide elections, but seats do not represent districts. All other PSCs in other states are appointed, usually by the governor.

A victory for the plaintiff would likely recommend that Georgia changes either Article IV, Section I of the state constitution and/or O.C.G.A. 46-2-1(a) to clarify how PSC members are elected, either removing any mention of the five PSC districts or removing any mention of statewide election for PSC members. It would also mean the return of Democratic Party representation to the PSC for the first time since 2006, when David Burgess was defeated in his re-election bid. Notably, out of those PSCs which are currently elected by district, only Montana lacks any Democrats among their membership (since 2012).

What may become an issue is if the districts of the PSC, currently based around counties, are subsequently redrawn further for Republicans’ base benefit, even though the current map would likely go 4R-1D anyway (which would be an improvement).

Or is there a further opportunity to redraw this map for VRA compliance? But then would the basis exclusively around multiple counties rather than around equal population get in the way?

District 2 is easily the most competitive district on this map, having voted 51% Trump-46% Biden. The current District 2 is also a minority opportunity district which is 51% minority (30.25% Black, 11.94% Hispanic), anchored between Athens, Macon, Warner Robins and the eastern Metro Atlanta counties.

Richmond County being moved from District 4 to District 2 would make District 2 knife’s-edge, easily flippable for either party depending on the year.

District 5 is not as competitive, having voted 54% Trump-43% Biden, but moving Muscogee County from out of District 1 would make District 5 a little bit more competitive, shifting to 53% Trump-44% Biden.

State supreme courts

Somewhat related: I did research on state supreme courts and how they are elected. Only Illinois, Kentucky, Mississippi and Louisiana hold district elections for state supreme court justices; all others, including Georgia, are either elected statewide or appointed/nominated by the governor. Recent actions by Republicans regarding elections of state supreme courts: November ballot question in Montana to elect justices by district rather than statewide, and a new law in Ohio to hold partisan elections for justices.

The idea of having justices represent districts may conflict with the fact that state supreme courts usually take cases from, and deliver interpretations of the law which impact, all areas of their states. This is in contrast to legislatures and commission bodies like PSCs, which enact new policies.