Currently, new congressional district maps are being drawn in preparation for the November, 2022 midterm elections. However, some of these new congressional maps are being challenged legally due to gerrymandering. In January, Ohio’s State Supreme Court ordered a redraw of the state’s suggested district map because it would lean the number of House representatives for the state more toward the Republican Party. And, on Feb. 4, the North Carolina’s State Supreme Court voted 4-3 to block a map proposal from their state legislature as well. North Carolina’s state legislature is currently majority Republican and the new map would have given a good opportunity for the Republican party to win a vast majority of the state’s 14 House seats, perhaps 10 or 11. Maps drawn by Democrat-controlled state legislatures are also being challenged, such as in New York.
Despite gerrymandering’s capability to affect national politics, the U.S. Supreme Court, if they follow precedent, ultimately has no real power when it comes to stopping gerrymandering. According to the Wall Street Journal, Supreme Court cases from 2004 and 2019 demonstrate the Supreme Court’s lack of true authority for involvement in gerrymandering. The cases the WSJ refers to, although not explicitly stated, are Vieth v. Jubelirer (2004) and Rucho v. Common Cause (2019). Both of these cases ended with a majority opinion that the Supreme Court can’t overturn gerrymander-affected maps because there are no set standards for deciding if a map infringes upon voter representation rights or not.
The cases reviewed in class, Baker v. Carr, Wesberry v. Sanders, and Shaw v. Reno, all seem to have given the Supreme Court some power regarding gerrymandering in the past. Whether that’s ensuring that districts are equal by population (Baker v. Carr and Wesberry v. Sanders), or deciding that race can be a factor in redistricting as long as it’s not the only factor, the Supreme Court has gotten involved in gerrymandering before. However, it seems like the difference between these cases is that Baker v. Carr, Wesberry v. Sanders, and Shaw v. Reno, dealt with equality, in population and race, whereas Vieth v. Jubelirer and Rucho v. Common Cause seem more like quarrels between political parties.
According to Vox, activists against partisan gerrymandering say that it’s a violation of the Equal Protection Clause and the First Amendment as victims of political gerrymandering can’t equally participate in voting and other political processes.
Partisan gerrymandering does seem dangerous for our democracy as it can drown out the voices of voters and create disproportional political representation in the House of Representatives. With the current political tension and political polarization spreading throughout the U.S., it’s extremely likely that attempts to shift House representation in the future by partisan gerrymandering will increase in the future. And, with unclear guidelines on how to determine if a district map is too politically influenced, it might get increasingly harder to stop partisan gerrymandering if state legislatures or commissioners get sneakier in the way they attempt to divide up the state. If the Supreme Court won’t make clear guidelines on how to outlaw extreme partisan gerrymandering, then it’s up to the states.
Currently, according to Ballotpedia, “19 states take political boundaries into account when drawing congressional districts.” However, the complication with this is that only drawing district lines in accordance with political boundaries can create districts with unequal populations. Perhaps a new guideline could be created that encourages state legislatures and commissioners to make sure that their new district lines do not change the amount of representatives from each party by a certain percentage. The issue is complicated, but one that needs to be addressed in order to ensure the public’s voices are heard.
Discussion questions:
Do you think the Supreme Court should get involved in stopping partisan gerrymandering?
How do you think partisan gerrymandering will affect the U.S. in the future?
What is a new guideline that could be suggested to potentially limit partisan gerrymandering?
How do you think technology can help us prevent partisan gerrymandering?
Sources:
Wall Street Journal article: https://www.wsj.com/articles/voters-cite-anti-gerrymandering-laws-in-suing-to-block-new-congressional-maps-11644057004?mod=politics_lead_pos1
Vox article: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/6/27/18681923/supreme-court-gerrymandering-partisan-rucho-common-cause
Ballotpedia information: https://ballotpedia.org/Political_boundaries
Potential gerrymandering “ruler” video from Vox: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRCZR_BbjTo
A crash course video in gerrymandering by Ted-Ed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YcUDBgYodIE
Vox’s more in depth view of the blocked 2022 district map in North Carolina: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2021/11/9/22765982/north-carolina-redistricting-gerrymandering-2021-2022
4 comments:
I am somewhat torn whether the Supreme Court should get involved in stopping partisan gerrymandering, but I generally lean towards no. I think judicial activism can be a very powerful tool in some situations, but regarding gerrymandering I am content if the court leaves it alone. A better solution is to pass laws so people can affect change within their means of power... I agree with Justice Roberts that this is not within the Supreme Court's sphere of power to make decisions on a blatantly political situation. According to the Vox article referenced, Roberts said "Partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts... no license to reallocate political power between the two major political parties, with no plausible grant of authority in the Constitution, and no legal standards to limit and direct their decisions." Of course, I wholeheartedly support the Supreme Court's actions to decide and vote against maps that discriminate racial, religious, or other minorities. That precedent is well known and Justice Roberts does not challenge that aspect of the situation. Also, an article from The Economist noted that he said "'provisions in state statutes and state constitutions can provide standards and guidance for state courts to apply.'" So, perhaps state supreme courts could be the deciding factor in this situation, which is a more feasible task.
Gerrymandering has existed for a long time in the U.S., and will continue to exist in the U.S. in the future. So, instead of predicting what will happen in the future due to current gerrymandering, we can look at the current effects of past gerrymandering. One example could be the rise in polarization in the U.S. Certainly, social media has played a role in causing polarization, but it could also be associated with gerrymandering (but it is a chicken-and-egg scenario so hard to tell what began first). Will it lead to the domination of one party over another? That's doubtful. Although there is an emphasis on gerrymandering favoring Republicans, it also favors Democrats, such as in Maryland or Illinois. Does it "even" out? Probably not, but state courts can help abate that discrepancy in the future.
"Guidelines" or doctrines will never fix gerrymandering... there would need to be laws written to prevent it. The difficulty is that every scenario is unique and nuanced, so using one law to apply to so many different situations seems implausible. This article talks about the difficulties in ending gerrymandering: https://newrepublic.com/article/163692/ohio-maps-elections-fix-gerrymandering
Maybe once there is a liberal majority in the SCOTUS some case will be voted on and influence law, but personally I am on the side of Justice Roberts that it should be left up to the states, if anyone.
The Economist Article: https://www.economist.com/democracy-in-america/2019/10/30/a-state-court-blocks-north-carolinas-republican-friendly-map
Thanks for your really insightful comment Nicky! I think you had a really good point about how state supreme courts could be more useful in the issue of partisan gerrymandering, especially since they have more authority regarding the matter. I also really appreciated your point about the complexities and nuances of each gerrymandering case. I think you’re absolutely right. Every one seems to be a bit different and bends the rules in its own ways, and maybe broad guidelines wouldn’t be enough to help and specific guidelines would leave out too many cases. The Soapbox article you brought up also had some really interesting points about gerrymandering and how single-member districts are more prone to manipulation by gerrymandering. I’m wondering if you have any thoughts on that. Do you think switching away from single-member districts would be a good option?
To be honest, I would be all for switching away from single-member districts, but it seems that using at-large multimember districts can dilute the vote of minority populations. The funny thing is, people also claim that single-member districts dilute minority votes because of it being supported by a winner-take-all-system. But, ultimately I'd have stick with single-member districts because they keep the two-party state stable and I truly believe a two-party system is best for a successful and productive democracy.
Partisan gerrymandering will harm election integrity and marginalized voices in the future. Republicans have started to establish the framework for guaranteeing victory in the midterms and in 2024 through the darling strategy of gerrymandering. Drastic changes to congressional maps, such as in Georgia, have decreased minority representation — increasing the amount of moderate white voters along with a population of Black, Latino, and Asian American voters. Due to the new changes, Representative Lucy McBath’s (D-Ga.) district has changed to one that favored Biden by 11 points to a district where Trump would have won by 15.
Voter ID laws, too, often create barriers to voting — disproportionately affecting people of color and low-income families — as state-issued IDs can be expensive and hard to obtain. Scarcity of polling places can make voting more difficult and time-consuming.
Disenfranchisement also affects indigenous peoples. North Dakota law requires that voters present identification displaying a street address, not just a post office box — hurting Native Americans on reservations, where street addresses are not common.
Further, 39 states have laws that can restrict people with mental disabilities from voting. Judges are allowed to strip voting rights from people with mental disorders ranging from schizophrenia to Down syndrome who are deemed “incompetent,” with statutes using archaic language like “idiots” or “insane persons.” Over 90% of people with developmental disabilities placed under conservatorship in Los Angeles County were losing their right to vote; in total, 32,000 Californians have lost their right to vote in the past decade.
Post a Comment