Tag: gerrymandering

The Story: Last week the U.S. Supreme Court rejected invitations to reinstate Republican designed redistricting maps in two states, siding in these instances with the...

The Story: In Virginia, a state with a close partisan balance between Democrats and Republicans, the people of the state decided in a referendum last...

The Story: Seven candidates for the nomination of the Democratic Party for President of the United States met in Manchester, New Hampshire on Friday, February...

Justice Stephen Breyer suggested a rule that a map be deemed an unconstitutional gerrymander if one party can win a majority of the statewide vote but nonetheless end up with less than one third of the available legislative seats.

And given the court's conservative lean, they could do so again in this most recent case, which involves House district maps drawn by state legislatures in Maryland and North Carolina. But ending gerrymandering might not be that easy, in part because both parties occasionally benefit from the process. What is gerrymandering? How gerrymandering works In most states, the legislature draws up new congressional maps following the conclusion of the U.S. census, which takes place every ten years. The state's governor then has to approve the new map by signing it into law. A number of states, most recently Utah, have tried to sidestep partisan redistricting by creating independent commissions tasked with drawing maps that better reflect the will of voters. States like Utah are also trying this approach, creating independent commissions that would limit legislatures' involvement in redistricting. Democrats have scored major victories at the state level in recent elections, and according to The Washington Post, they would now have the ability to draw the boundaries of 76 House seats nationwide should redistricting happen tomorrow. Another 113 seats would be drawn by independent commissions, while 60 would be redrawn in states where Republicans and Democrats share control of the state government. Why 2020 matters for gerrymandering Unless the Supreme Court intervenes, the 2020 elections remain Democrats' best hope of undoing Republican gerrymanders and instituting new maps.

If an adjective creates a redundancy, does preceding it with two other adjectives give the Supreme Court a reason to venture where it has never gone before? The justices should, like Ulysses, listen to this siren song but bind themselves from obeying it. Tuesday’s issue is whether the court should attempt something for which it has neither an aptitude nor any constitutional warrant — concocting criteria for deciding when (adjective two) excessive partisan gerrymandering becomes (adjective three) unconstitutional. Gerrymandering is generally as surreptitious as a brass band and is, always and everywhere, as political as lemonade is lemony. Until 1962, the court stayed away from the inherently political process of the drawing of district lines by legislatures organized along partisan lines because the Constitution is unambiguous: “The times, places and manner of holding elections for senators and representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof.” There are enough open-textured terms in the Constitution (“establishment” of religion, “unreasonable” searches, “cruel” punishments, etc.) So, the Constitution is explicit: Congress, not the judiciary, is the federal remedy for alleged defects in the drawing of congressional districts. The political branches of the state and federal governments are assigned to deal with the inherently value-laden politics of drawing district lines. These include criteria for measuring unconstitutional excesses in the common practices of “cracking” (dispersing one party’s voters across districts dominated by the other party) and “packing” (one party concentrating the other party’s voters into supermajorities in a few districts). And the political science professoriate stands ready to eagerly tutor the court about “wasted votes” resulting from “efficiency gaps.” Today, people who are unhappy about North Carolina’s gerrymandering argue (as a lower court did) that “the Constitution does not authorize state redistricting bodies to engage in … partisan gerrymandering.” (Emphasis added.) The Constitution is silent regarding limits on state legislatures’ partisan redistricting practices and is explicit regarding Congress’ exclusive power to modify these practices.

The Constitution makes clear that legislative redistricting is a matter for the states and Congress, not the courts, to sort out. If an adjective creates a redundancy, does preceding it with two other adjectives give the Supreme Court a reason to venture where it has never gone before? The practice the court will consider is (adjective one) “partisan gerrymandering.” This modifier, however, does not modify; there is no other kind of gerrymandering. Tuesday’s issue is whether the court should attempt something for which it has neither an aptitude nor any constitutional warrant — concocting criteria for deciding when (adjective two) excessive partisan gerrymandering becomes (adjective three) unconstitutional. Until 1962, the court stayed away from the inherently political process of the drawing of district lines by legislatures organized along partisan lines because the Constitution is unambiguous: “The times, places and manner of holding elections for senators and representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof.” There are enough open-textured terms in the Constitution (“establishment” of religion, “unreasonable” searches, “cruel” punishments, etc.) Furthermore, the political realists who framed the Constitution, and who understood the pervasiveness of partisanship, added the following to the elections clause quoted above: Congress may “at any time by law make or alter such regulations” as the states might write regarding congressional elections. So, the Constitution is explicit: Congress, not the judiciary, is the federal remedy for alleged defects in the drawing of congressional districts. The political branches of the state and federal governments are assigned to deal with the inherently value-laden politics of drawing district lines. And the political-science professoriate stands ready to eagerly tutor the court about “wasted votes” resulting from “efficiency gaps.” Today, people who are unhappy about North Carolina’s gerrymandering argue (as a lower court did) that “the Constitution does not authorize state redistricting bodies to engage in . The Constitution is silent regarding limits on state legislatures’ partisan redistricting practices and is explicit regarding Congress’s exclusive power to modify these practices.

WASHINGTON — If an adjective creates a redundancy, does preceding it with two other adjectives give the Supreme Court a reason to venture where it has never gone before? The justices should, like Ulysses, listen to this siren song but bind themselves from obeying it. Tuesday’s issue is whether the court should attempt something for which it has neither an aptitude nor any constitutional warrant — concocting criteria for deciding when (adjective two) excessive partisan gerrymandering becomes (adjective three) unconstitutional. Gerrymandering is generally as surreptitious as a brass band and is, always and everywhere, as political as lemonade is lemony. Until 1962, the court stayed away from the inherently political process of the drawing of district lines by legislatures organized along partisan lines because the Constitution is unambiguous: “The times, places and manner of holding elections for senators and representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof.” There are enough open-textured terms in the Constitution (“establishment” of religion, “unreasonable” searches, “cruel” punishments, etc.) So, the Constitution is explicit: Congress, not the judiciary, is the federal remedy for alleged defects in the drawing of congressional districts. The political branches of the state and federal governments are assigned to deal with the inherently value-laden politics of drawing district lines. These include criteria for measuring unconstitutional excesses in the common practices of “cracking” (dispersing one party’s voters across districts dominated by the other party) and “packing” (one party concentrating the other party’s voters into supermajorities in a few districts). And the political science professoriate stands ready to eagerly tutor the court about “wasted votes” resulting from “efficiency gaps.” Today, people who are unhappy about North Carolina’s gerrymandering argue (as a lower court did) that “the Constitution does not authorize state redistricting bodies to engage in … partisan gerrymandering.” (Emphasis added.) The Constitution is silent regarding limits on state legislatures’ partisan redistricting practices and is explicit regarding Congress’ exclusive power to modify these practices.

If an adjective creates a redundancy, does preceding it with two other adjectives give the Supreme Court a reason to venture where it has never gone before? The justices should, like Ulysses, listen to this siren song but bind themselves from obeying it. Tuesday’s issue is whether the court should attempt something for which it has neither an aptitude nor any constitutional warrant — concocting criteria for deciding when (adjective two) excessive partisan gerrymandering becomes (adjective three) unconstitutional. Gerrymandering is generally as surreptitious as a brass band and is, always and everywhere, as political as lemonade is lemony. Until 1962, the court stayed away from the inherently political process of the drawing of district lines by legislatures organized along partisan lines because the Constitution is unambiguous: “The times, places and manner of holding elections for senators and representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof.” There are enough open-textured terms in the Constitution (“establishment” of religion, “unreasonable” searches, “cruel” punishments, etc.) So, the Constitution is explicit: Congress, not the judiciary, is the federal remedy for alleged defects in the drawing of congressional districts. The political branches of the state and federal governments are assigned to deal with the inherently value-laden politics of drawing district lines. These include criteria for measuring unconstitutional excesses in the common practices of “cracking” (dispersing one party’s voters across districts dominated by the other party) and “packing” (one party concentrating the other party’s voters into supermajorities in a few districts). And the political science professoriate stands ready to eagerly tutor the court about “wasted votes” resulting from “efficiency gaps.” Today, people who are unhappy about North Carolina’s gerrymandering argue (as a lower court did) that “the Constitution does not authorize state redistricting bodies to engage in ... partisan gerrymandering.” (Emphasis added.) The Constitution is silent regarding limits on state legislatures’ partisan redistricting practices and is explicit regarding Congress’ exclusive power to modify these practices.

Former President Barack Obama’s nonprofit political organization is teaming up with his former Attorney General to launch a campaign against gerrymandering. The “All On The Line” campaign - which will also work to protect the Affordable Care Act, reduce gun violence, and expand voting rights – is part of a push in recent years by high-profile Democrats to curtail the use of gerrymandering across the country. “For too long, politicians have been able to pick their voters, instead of allowing voters to choose their representatives,” Eric Holder said in a statement. Gerrymandering has become a hot topic in recent years. State legislatures in Wisconsin and Michigan have been heavily criticized after Republicans have moved to curtail the powers of Democrats elected in November. “Our mission is to restore fairness to our democracy and ensure every American has an equal say in our government,” Holder said. “There is not a moment to waste,” Holder said in his statement. “With the census in 2020 and redistricting in 2021, we have to start building our movement now.” The Supreme Court is also plunging back into the issue of whether electoral districts can be too partisan. The court took up the issue of partisan gerrymandering last term in cases from Wisconsin and the same Maryland district, but the justices failed to reach a decision on limiting political line-drawing for political gain. Fox News' Kelly Chernenkoff and Louis Casiano and the Associated Press contributed to this report.