Plus: Oregon senate walkouts and Georgia legislature takes on local prosecutors. ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌

[link removed]

Florida Redistricting Case Timeline Could Affect the 2024 Elections

Last month, Florida’s supreme court agreed to review a redistricting case challenging the elimination of a Black district on a congressional map. However, lawyers in the case say

[link removed]

there is a high likelihood that the court’s review will come too late for a new map to be in effect for the 2024 election. This delay could have a substantial impact, effectively disenfranchising many Florida voters.

Florida House Democratic Leader Fentrice Driskell questioned

[link removed]

the high court’s timing, saying that it “demonstrates the lack of urgency which they view this issue.” This would not be the first time a court has declined to intervene before an election. For example, the U.S. Supreme Court in Allen v Milligan

[link removed]

declined to order Alabama to put new maps in place before the 2022 midterm election, even though it ultimately found that the maps used were racially discriminatory.



Oregon Voters Punish Legislators Who Abuse Walkouts



In the Oregon legislature, senators in the minority party have often used

[link removed]

walkouts to prevent the majority from moving legislation. These walkouts typically consist

[link removed]

of lawmakers being absent from sessions and agreeing to return only if legislative concessions are made. Over the past few years, lawmaker walkouts in Oregon have had a large political impact

[link removed]

, particularly surrounding contentious topics such as abortion access or climate change. In response, Oregon voters in 2022 directly amended the state's constitution

[link removed]

to reduce or prevent walkouts.

The amendment, called Measure 113

[link removed])

, bars

[link removed]

any lawmaker with 10 or more unexcused absences from seeking reelection. Notwithstanding the new rule, in 2023, 10 senators repeatedly boycotted legislative work and were thus excluded from the ballot by Oregon’s secretary of state when they sought to run to retain their seats. Several senators challenged their exclusion in court, arguing

[link removed]

that the language of the ballot amendment should be interpreted to allow them to seek another term in office before exclusion. The Oregon Supreme Court ruled

[link removed]

on February 1 that they indeed cannot seek reelection. Thus, the lawmakers who participated in the 2023 walkouts — 9 Republicans and 1 Independent — are ineligible

[link removed]

, meaning there will be 10 new members in the 30-seat senate.

Secretary of State LaVonne Griffin-Valade responded

[link removed]

, “I’ve said from the beginning my intention was to support the will of the voters. It was clear to me that voters intended for legislators with a certain number of absences in a legislative session to be immediately disqualified from seeking re-election.”



Georgia Legislature Removes Court from Its Power Struggle with Prosecutors



As the trend

[link removed]

of state legislatures seeking to preempt the exercise of discretion by local prosecutors continues, some courts find themselves drawn into these power struggles.

Last year, the Georgia General Assembly’s Republican majorities pushed the passage of Senate Bill 92

[link removed]).

, which created

[link removed]

a new organization called the Prosecuting Attorneys Qualifications Commission to investigate and discipline Georgia’s elected prosecutors. “We have seen theatrics take hold in Georgia over the safety and welfare of our communities as some prosecutors promise ‘reform’ and then deliver nothing but ineffectiveness and blatant disregard for the law,” said

[link removed]

the bill’s sponsor.

The bill originally required the Georgia Supreme Court to approve proposed rules for the operation of the new commission before the commission could begin its work. However, when the legislation reached

[link removed]

the Georgia Supreme Court, the court held that it lacked the constitutional authority to be involved in this way. While this prevented the bill from taking immediate effect, the Georgia legislature has continued to push

[link removed]

the idea forward, and late last month, it advanced a revised version of S.B. 92 that would remove

[link removed]

the requirement for the high court to approve the commission’s rules.









[link removed]

Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law

120 Broadway, Suite 1750 New York, NY 10271

646-292-8310

tel:646-292-8310

[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

Support Brennan Center

[link removed]

Want to change how you receive these emails or unsubscribe? Click here

[link removed]

to update your preferences.

[link removed]

[link removed]

[link removed]

[link removed]

[link removed]

[link removed]