In the end, it would have been better for the Supreme Court to provide guidance and a meaningful standard to limit partisan gerrymandering.
Advertisement
The U.S. Supreme Court issued rulings Monday in two gerrymandering cases, from Wisconsin and Maryland, that are being closely watched in North Carolina.
The supreme court dodged a decision on whether it is constitutional for political parties to redraw electoral maps to gain a partisan advantage.
The justices ruled against Wisconsin Democrats, who challenged legislative districts that gave Republicans a big majority in the state legislature.
Roberts argued the voters didn’t prove they live in a “cracked or packed” district, and noted their argument wasn’t enough to sustain individual voters’ claims.
The US District Court of Western Wisconsin ruled in 2016 that the statewide map targeted Democratic voters by design. It is also the goal of the Republicans who brought suit the Maryland suit drawn by Republicans that drew a popular Republican Congressman into an unwinnable district. Both of the cases before the court – Gill v. Whitford out of Wisconsin, and Benisek v. Lamone out of Maryland – presented the court with potential standards.
The Maryland case differed from the Wisconsin case in several ways.
Worse, Republicans have attacked the rule of law itself when rulings go against their ability to game the system. Courts have always been reluctant to decide when a district’s boundaries favor one party, perhaps hoping voters might someday overcome their political divisions and cooperate in electing representatives who oppose partisan gerrymandering.
Democratic Party voters in Wisconsin sued state election officials in 2015 claiming a Republican-drawn legislative map was meant to discriminate against them for their political beliefs and create enduring Republican majorities.
“These are important decisions that actually move the ball forward and the court isn’t walking away from the issue”.
People line up outside the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington to hear arguments in a case about political maps in Wisconsin that could affect elections across the country, October 3, 2017. It was nonetheless a blow to opponents of partisan gerrymandering.
The lower court had declined to take that step, disagreeing with Republicans that using the Democratic-drawn map would result in “a manifest and irreparable injury”.
“These technicalities have nothing to do with our case”. “The same should be true for partisan gerrymandering”.
Advocacy groups fighting against political gerrymandering likewise weighed in. Lawmakers in the Wisconsin Capitol need to be accountable to voters and support legislation that will take the power of map drawing out of partisan control and give it to an independent body, with plenty of public input, in the interest of fairness and democracy. In Shelby County v. Holder, the court argued that anti-discriminatory provisions of the Voting Rights Act targeting states that had historically disenfranchised voters were no longer necessary.
The Supreme Court in Washington.
“We are glad to see that the court decisively rejected sociological gobbledygook like the efficiency gap”.
“In the District Court’s view, “charging ahead” and adjudicating the plaintiffs’ claims in that fluctuating legal environment, when firmer guidance from this Court might have been forthcoming, would have been a mistake”, the ruling said. Writing for the court, Chief Justice John Roberts suggested any partisan gerrymandering challenges would have to proceed on a district-by-district basis. The Supreme Court agreed with that decision and is now letting the case play out in lower court. “That is going to cause very serious harm to the status and integrity of the decisions of this court in the eyes of the country”. Some justices in the past have said the courts have no role in the process; it is between voters and their representatives.
“Regardless of what happens in the courts, Wisconsin can still right this wrong”, said Erin Grunze, executive director of the League of Women Voters of Wisconsin. “Multiple statements in the opinions indicate that this practice, when it becomes egregious and discriminatory, crosses the line to become unconstitutional”.
Advertisement
The court could decide in the coming days to revisit the issue next term with a case involving a Republican-drawn congressional map in North Carolina. In a separate case, the U.S. Supreme Court past year ordered a lower court to reconsider previously rejected claims that the Legislature and governor unconstitutionally diluted black voting by packing a high percentage of black voters into 11 state House districts.
