On April 27th, the New York Court of Appeals ruled that the new congressional redistricting lines constituted a violation of the anti-gerrymandering laws. The Republican voters who sued along with the judges behind the decision state that the redistricting plans specifically violated anti-gerrymandering laws included in the state’s constitution. This decision followed a lower-level court decision that also ruled in favor of the Republican voters.
Now, the judges have declared that “a special court master will pass new district maps” in place of the state legislature. The ruling is damaging to Democrats, who were hoping to score the three extra Democratic seats in the House that the redistricting plan would provide. With redistricting occurring throughout the nation as a result of the 2020 census, Democrats are hoping to maintain their majority in the house as fears of “expected losses in other states where Republicans control state government.”
Though I agree with the goals of anti-gerrymandering laws, I agree with the Supreme Court majority opinion in the 2019 Rucho v. Common Cause case that states “fairness” in regards to redistricting is incredibly difficult, if not impossible, to determine. If one argued that the New York legislature proposal for redistricting made unfair district lines more “fair,” what could be argued against that? This idea is hard to phrase, but the only argument that these district lines were “unfair” is the fact that the proposal gave Democrats 3 more seats than they previously had. What if Republicans already had 3 more seats than was “fair,” and the proposal was simply making it more equal? What is the basis for “fairness” in regards to gerrymandering? Is it simply maintaining each party’s number of seats since when the gerrymandering laws were formed? What if those proportions were already inherently unfair, and the conservative nature of the laws do nothing but reinforce that inequality?
I think that this New York case, in addition to the 2019 Rucho v. Common Cause, is an example of the vagueness and blurred definitions of “fairness” with regards to congressional gerrymandering. While there are certainly examples of clear, substantial gerrymandering (as is the case with Shaw v. Reno), I believe that Congressional districting as a whole can never be completely “fair”. Congressional districting, in my mind, presents the same flaws as the electoral college system; it dilutes voting power based on geopolitical boundaries and hinders equality and fairness.
Is the electoral college system similar to Congressional redistricting? Given many Americans’ discontent with the electoral college system, does the redistricting system also need reform/clarity?
Is it possible for state legislatures/courts to determine what district lines are “fair”? What is the best way to determine this?
In an ideal world where solutions can be passed into law without gridlock between the parties, what solution would ensure the maximum amount of fairness in Congressional districting? Would an ideal solution even continue to use districting? In other words, how can America end conflicts over gerrymandering?
https://www.npr.org/2022/04/27/1095100208/new-york-redistricting-rejected
5 comments:
I think its rather difficult to determine what is fair when it comes to redistricting. As we know, the equal protection clause ensures that there is representation for all citizens and also prevents gerrymandering based on both race and how much a vote is worth. There are some state guidelines that are in place that include political boundaries, community of interest, compactness, and contiguity. The rules and guidelines right now, like Nathan said, is quite vague, however, because redistricting is a touchy subject, I think it would prove difficult for all states to follow the same guidelines. An article read illustrates that there are solutions to make redistricting more fair to voters through multimember districts and ranked-choice voting. While this does give more compromise to the districts, I think that this just leads to a more moderate representative pool. I don’t enjoy polarization but I think that many people won’t feel represented by their “moderate” representative and they often won’t entice change. However, I can understand the appeal and how it would create a “fairer” redistricting process. As of right now, I think that even if Republicans or Democrats have a one or two more seats than the other, I would not count that as unfair because it could have happened to either party. In the cases of Shaw v. Reno, again like Nathan said, I can see how that is clearly a violation.
https://theconversation.com/how-to-make-voting-districts-fair-to-voters-not-parties-162651 https://redistricting.lls.edu/redistricting-101/where-are-the-lines-drawn/
As this article makes apparent, gerrymandering is such a complex topic and makes compromise, much less solution, very hard. Gerrymandering cases like Baker v. Carr that regard a state's failure to redraw its legislative districts despite population growth and Shaw v. Reno that regard the strict consideration of race in redistricting represent a bit of the range within the gerrymandering argument. The central message behind gerrymandering cases always seems to be that redistricting will never be "fair" to everyone. If some people are please, another group based on class, race, or size, will not be. Since the consideration of these complexities are executed in gerrymandering decision making, I don't think fair will ever have a universal definition in this context. As far as the argument regarding Democrats and Republicans go, I agree with Arissa. Without limiting the consideration of complexities, determining fair ratios is impossible. On some level, we have to acknowledge that the fluctuations in representation actually serve to represent the fairness that comes with all of redistricting's complexity.
I don’t necessarily think that the electoral college system is similar to congressional redistricting because the only thing that they have in common is favoring the majority. Gerrymandering is definitely more on the corrupt side since it allows for officials to control and manipulate redistricting in order to benefit their party. I think that if people are already upset with the electoral college system, it should speak volumes on what needs to be done in terms of congressional redistricting which is arguably more unfair.
I think it’s hard to define what being “fair” means since everyone has a different idea of fairness. If districts were to be made fair it would require for equal representation of people from all races, religions, ages, etc. which would not only be very difficult to achieve but would also result in oddly shaped districts.
I agree that the electoral college system is similar to the Congressional redistricting since like you wrote the system gives unequal power to some voters once it takes into consideration the geography of states which are human made lines, instead of considering the population individually with each vote equalling one person which our technology would make it easy to do. I think both systems need reform, but unfortunately despite so many people being discontent with the system it’s very difficult to do. I think in the context of when the constitution was written the system did make sense, but with the changing political climate finding loopholes in the system instead of playing by the rules as intended, there needs to be a better system that more clearly reflects the votes of individual citizens. It is difficult for state legislatures/courts to determine what lines are fair since fairness is a grey concept and all lines are divided differently making judging the fairness of lines inherently unfair. I think the best way to ensure the maximum amount of fairness is to get rid of congressional districts and just count the total numbers of Democrats and Republicans in each state, since gerrymandering is a loophole in the system that makes elections unnecessarily bureaucratic at the expense of citizens.
I think that there may never be a true definition of “fair” that is justly used to create all congressional district lines, but I think that politicians will continue to argue for their version of “fair” to get what they want. I think the best way to combat this problem is to get rid of congressional districts altogether, and as Stephanie said, choose how many republicans and democrats there are based on the state’s population and opinion. I understand that this takes away the element of having a district congress member who represents your district, but I think that the current system is corrupt and needs to be changed.
Post a Comment