There are now computer programs that can tell the degree of probability whether a political map is due to gerrymandering. Some computer programs can actually draw up maps that are free of political tampering. It's time to expose the courts and the legislatures to technology.
1
It's possible to enact neutral mapping rules that at least reduce political gerrymandering; for example, a requirement that districts keep intact counties within a district as much as possible; a requirement that no township be split.
Like many lawyers, I went to law school because I was no good at math. However, my brother-in-law who has an advance degree in math, advises me that gerrymandering has been a topic of many articles in the statistics literature for years, and is considered by mathematicians to be a problem amenable to simple and straightforward solution. One can only hope that 5 justices will get past their anit-math inclination, articulated by the Chief Justice, and adopt a means to rein in this Frankenstein of a problem with, yes, some statistical-based boundaries. If need be, enlist the services of special masters in such cases. The Constitution does not compel that we be ruled by crazies of either the left or the right.
It is difficult to believe that the Supreme Court will not recognize the gross unfairness of gerrymandering. The argument that finding a politically neutral "fix" for it is too hard is utter nonsense!
Here's one way:
(1) Say a state has ten congressional districts: Start in the center of each of the state's ten most populous counties (no matter where they're located, geographically) and count from each centerpoint outward -- in a circle -- until 1/10 of the state's population is reached. When the outgoing circle-lines intersect, continue the counting in both directions from that intersection point until each district is filled.
(2) Forget about race as a basis for drawing district lines! To the extent that central cities or other concentrations of minority voters help to elect minority candidates, that's great -- but artificially creating districts to favor one group of voters over another is just as wrongheaded as political gerrymandering.
(3) If a state government doesn't like drawing circles, let them draw horizontal or vertical lines starting at a corner of the state and extend the line until the requisite number of voters is reached. These districts might not have much commonality of interest among their voters, but at least they wouldn't be pre-planned for politicians.
This isn't rocket science, people, but having any chance at all of keeping our Republic depends on making sweeping changes of this kind.
Actually, fixing this mathematically would be very simple. Simply specify that the sum of all the districts' perimeters be a minimum. The map can then be challenged by anyone who can come up with another map with a smaller sum of the perimeters.
Gerrymandering would still be possible, but its effectiveness would be greatly reduced and enforcing this specification would be very easy given today's computers.
In one word - no. In more words - not in a million years. Remember, these are the Citizens United crowd. Gerrymandering to them is protected political speech.
"There, an expert witness for the plaintiffs randomly generated 3,000 simulated congressional district maps using the same demographic data as the official map that has regularly awarded Republicans 10 of 13 seats.
None of the 3,000 gave the party more than nine seats. "
This is US justice with the GOP in charge.
As one of the Plaintiffs in the Common Cause case, I wholeheartedly agree that the lawyers in the case have done a magnificent job in presenting the case and anticipating the standing issue which was raised in the Wisconsin gerrymandering case. While the one Republican judge on the three-judge panel dissented in part because of his disagreement involving the packing of Democrats in three districts, he concurred with the majority that there was both standing and a constitutional violation. The 200 plus page majority opinion is extremely well written. I think that commenters are expressing despair over the makeup of the court without fully understanding the NC case.As one of the Plaintiffs in the Common Cause case, I wholeheartedly agree that the lawyers in the case have done a magnificent job in presenting the case and anticipating the standing issue which was raised in the Wisconsin gerrymandering case. While the one Republican judge on the three-judge panel dissented in part because of his disagreement involving the packing of Democrats in three districts, he concurred with the majority that there was both standing and a constitutional violation. The 200 plus page majority opinion is extremely well written. I think that commenters are expressing despair over the makeup of the court without fully understanding the NC case.
1
Reynolds v Sims(1964) said “legislators represent people not trees and acres.” Since that monumental decision districts have been drawn that have “equal number of people” but in an effort to achieve this political parties have used a heavy hand to draw legislative districts that favor one party over another. A case in point is the 7th Congressional district in Alabama that has been drawn in a manner to take in African-American voters in Montgomery and Birmingham out of the 2nd and 6th Congressional districts in order to heavily weigh them Republican.
Gerrymandering is as old as this country. Dems didn't object to it when they benefited from it.
I don't understand why the Supreme Court can't figure out a political neutral solution. Do it geographically: Start at the upper left corner of each state (North West corner) and expand a box in both dimensions equally (south and east) until it captures the appropriate fraction of the population for that state i.e., if there are three congressmen, until the box captures 33% of the populations, then begin a new box, etc. Perhaps make adjustment to accommodate county lines to be practical. But really, this is not brain surgery!
1
I’m an optimist, political gerrymandering will be eliminated by the Supreme Court (and Congress and state government), but only after they have tried every other possibility.
Gerrymandering should be illegal as it unfairly tilts elections along with Citizen United. With this Republican Supreme Court does anyone really believe that there will be a change.
1
Every voter, in all gerrymandered districts, no matter if they are GOP or Dem, on a winning or losing side in the game of drawing lines, has had the effectuveness of his or her vote denied. A "yes" has no impact and is of no consequence, if a "no" has been made meaningless. And vice versa. So any voter might ask, 'Why bother?' I'm hoping SCOTUS realizes how very dangerous this is.
2
Reportedly, Chief Justice Roberts is reluctant to dive into this controversy without some sort of vetted objective measure of political bias in congressional districting. It appears that now the mathematicians have come up with a couple of metrics that will fit that criterion. We'll see if that will satisfy him and whichever other Justices willing to consider facts instead of their raw conservative bias.
1
Just like gun control (or lack thereof), gerrymandering is here to stay. Why? Because the Republicans are in control and it’s their only hold on power. Well, not only...
They also control the Supreme Court.
And the Justice Department
And the Senate (Mitch only considers Republican bills)
And the Electoral College
And State Legislators
And voter suppression
And, and, and...BUT
Putin owns the Republicans.
1
Easy solution. All districts must be square or rectangular except where a district borders a state boundary that is not a straight line.
Sounds like this needs the old splitting the candy bar solution: one kid divides it but the other gets first choice as to which piece they get. If the Republicans draw the map, Democrats get the choice of which districts they can claim, and vice versa.
No one has to convince me of the efficacy of gerrymandering to subvert the will of the people. I live in Louisiana and see its worst effects.
If you doubt me, answer this: do you want to live in Louisiana?
I stay because it is my home, and someone has to work for justice. There are many of us, not enough so far, but many.
1
The crrrent Supreme Court does not have an “above the fray reputation for fairness.” It has a reputation as an operational part of the conservative right wing. The current 5 members of the court have an agenda to distort the laws of the United States to permanently eliminate the ability to govern the nation in any way other than conservative orthodoxy. They are idealogues, not judges.
1
This piece gives short-shrift to Democratic chicanery in Maryland that pre-dates GOP chicanery in Southern states.
In 2002, there were four Democrats and four Republicans in Maryland's Congressional Delegation. The next year it was 6 D and 2 R, and 10 years later it was 7 D and 1 R. At the same time, the proportion of Republican voters to Democrats did not shrink.
At one point, when the Maryland high court was considering a challenge to the Gerrymandered districts, the president of the senate, Senator Thomas V. "Mike" Miller (D-Calvert County) called the Justices at home to poll them on their deliberations and remind them that he controlled their budgets. He is still in office and was just feted last week by none other than Bill Clinton.
When the Democrats can do this with impunity, and nary a peep from Common Cause, the League of Women Voters, and other good government groups, then howls about North Carolina fall on deaf ears.
But here's food for thought. Look at Maryland's Third Congressional District and ask yourself ... if this was a GOP district in a Southern State, would you be complaining?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maryland%27s_3rd_congressional_district
Gerrymandering is only bad when it benefits democrats is what I fully expect to hear from the so-called supreme court. The whole government is illegitimate at this point. I'm not even sure why I bother to vote anymore.
1
If there is one thing that speaks to the absolute rot of democracy in the US it's politicians picking their own voters.
But I have about zero percent hope that the current political hacks occupying half of the supreme court seats will do the right thing.
2
Why would a bunch of political hacks end gerrymandering when it serves them well?
Democratic Party needs to step up to the ethical plate. Condemn the Democrats that have done gerrymandering. They haven't done this. Shame on them.
Hate to say it (ok not really..) but the USA has become the least democratic member of the "first world" cadre of countries - and the open, ubiquitous practice of deliberately disenfranchising huge portions of the electorate via permitting the political faction of the day to redraw the boundaries of electoral districts to favor their chances of remaining in power (i.e. gerrymandering), is a HUGE part of this national farce and shame. From what has been presented in this article, which is part of the Public Record, it is clear that this practice has become so ingrained in the political landscape of the country that nobody even TRIES to hide it any longer. Most semi-civilized countries don't have this problem (ok, i live in Canada...sue me!) because they as a nation delegate the task of drawing up constituency boundaries to an independent body designed to be as neutral as possible - an Electoral Commission which draws the electoral maps as fairly as possible and runs the elections in as neutral a way as they can. To my mind having the machinery of a country's democracy being overseen by people selected on the basis of their ability to do this in a fair and essentially neutral manner, is a no-brainer!! If the process is given to those with vested interests in the outcome, democracy becomes a total joke - a battle between warring factions intent on gaining and maintaining power by any and all means possible. Those without power or influence, lose their votes and their voices.
1
If gerrymandering with political party affiliation in mind is disenfranchisement, then what about drawing districts according to racial make up?
If the court has twice affirmed that districts can be drawn on the basis of race, which is immutable and intrinsic to personhood and basic civil rights, then why not political views which easily change?
This is silly. There is an assumption here that parties are to benefit. In fact, it is people who run in elections. We need more focus on individuals and less on party. If people are not focusing on individuals, then why should the Supreme Court?
Besides, where in the Constitution is there a prohibition against states setting their own rules for elections? This is North Carolina's problem, if it is a problem.
No, they will not. Or at least, 5 will not.
@Ray McKenzie Roberts is concerned about the reputation of the court. He may vote with the liberals on this one.
Before we answer the question, we must first realize that SCOTUS is now nothing more than a right wing activist court, whose end game is something resembling an evangelical theocracy. Since republicans can no longer count on winning a free or fair election, of course gerrymandering is a useful tool for victory. MAGA.
All voting district boundaries must from now on be drawn by non-partisan commissions - there - I fixed it for you!
1
The Supreme Court will rule for Republicans in both cases
“Since no political map is completely free of bias....”
There’s a truism for you. Of course, political maps are biased, so we should use maps that aren’t political.
I’m no political geographer, but even I can say it is most assuredly possible to generate completely bias-free districts. I do not maintain this is the ideal way, or even a very good way, but it is a way:
Find the two points in a state that are farthest apart and draw a line (AB) between them. Now start at one end of the line and sweep the state with a line perpendicular to AB. When the number of people swept is equal to the desired population of the district, stop and draw the straight-line First District boundary. Now start sweeping again for the Second District.
Certainly a better way would impose some non-partisan rules about compactness, and maybe not dividing certain subdivisions. But to throw up our hands and say it can’t be done? Ridiculous.
If politicians can determine how to create gerrymandered districts so successfully and consistently, why can't courts see the same thing just as easily? It obviously is not a mystery.
Either those who are elected make the decision about where district lines should be drawn, or those who are unelected make that decision. Since you're as likely to find nonpartisan line-drawing experts as you are to find unicorns, and since we live in a democracy, only those who are elected should make that decision even if it means they will draw lines to favor their own party. The opposition party is free to make district lines an issue and the people can then vote if they think the lines are unfair. If they keep voting for the same party or person then you have your answer.
Tthere is no Constitutional requirement to aid or even preserve political parties. The federal government could recommend and encourage, perhaps with financial incentives such as were used to "encourage" all the states to raise the drinking age to 21, nonpartisan redistricting panels such as California and a number of other states have implemented.
As George Will pointed out, "partisan gerrymandering" is redundant as there is no other kind.
I wouldn't leave it to legislators or the courts to decide what an acceptably partisan map looks like. So, the only sensible solution is a decision by which an independent, no-partisan agency draws up the districts in some fair and equitable manner.
But I doubt those 5 Republican Justices will go for that.
Why is it that America has so much difficulty doing the sensible things which are taken for granted in other industrial democracies. And it doesn't have to begin with some of the relatively complicated concepts that other countries got right but America didn't, like the necessity of separating the position of an independent Head-of-State from that of a government CEO answerable to the legislature. I'm talking about simple things, like rational election boundaries set by independent commissions, or an electoral process which doesn't accept open bribery as integral to the system. What is it about Americans which make them so hostile to democracy?
5
If one of the required criteria for a democracy is One Man One Vote , the USA fails to meet the standard. The Constitution itself ignores that principle by creating the Electoral College which is a flagrant repudiation of the will of the majority. Furthermore, having a pack of motivated politicians draw the electoral districts is a travesty of democratic principles. Having elected politicians to conduct elections also promotes corruption of the voting process.
The way the Supreme Court justices are selected is also highly partisan.
Other countries entrust the Civil Service to administer elections without interference from elected politicians.
2
Why would a Supreme Court that exists because of gerrymandering end gerrymandering? Gorush and Kavanaugh are both on the court explicitly because of gerrymandering.
@Randall The Senate votes to confirm justices. The Senate is not subject to gerrymandering. (Gerrymandering involves redrawing district boundaries; state boundaries are set, and are not redrawn after every census.)
1
What's crazy here is that the Repubs don't even claim any attempt at fairness in NC. They openly admit the maps were drawn to disenfranchise Dems. When someone tells you how bad they are, believe them.
The SC has previously declined to act because the Constitution fails to provide a strict mathematical formula for apportionment. They are forced to exercise judgment - isn't that why we have judges? If one party gets 60% of the vote but only 30% of the seats, it shouldn't require a cookbook formula to know it's wrong.
3
Ohio has some of the most extreme gerrymandering in USA. Republicans increasingly have been ruthless in carving voting districts sometimes into long, winding threads.
Jim Jordan is among the politicians who would not be in office if any semblance of normal district lines had been drawn.
Data compiled by the Associated Press indicates that Ohio’s
gerrymandered House districts allowed Republicans to win seven more statehouse seats than they otherwise would have judging by vote totals.
On the federal level, GOP-drawn districts also protected Republicans in the U.S. House delegation.
Republicans got 52 percent of the vote. But thanks to the heavily gerrymandering, Republicans took 75 percent of the seats.
This is the equivalent of shopkeepers putting a hand on the scale, to enrich themselves. It is dishonest.
This theft of votes should have no sanction in a democracy.
4
This "fear" of being "kingmakers" by the members of the Supreme Court is groundless. The court isn't being asked to favor one party over the other, they are being asked to restore the integrity of the vote. One method for handling the drawing congressional boundaries would be to require that each state create a non-partisan independent board to draw congressional boundaries and present them to the state legislatures for approval.
Seems like a fairly predictable 5-4 decision giving states the right to draw their districts however they want. Gorsuch and the silent one with concur in Roberts opinion. They will opine that because the Constitution does not use the word gerrymander, anything goes!
@Horace
Sadly, I think you are correct. The majority will probably stick it to anti-gerrymandering voters even more by saying independent, non-political commissions many states now use to set congressional lines are unconstitutional as well. They will say only state Legislatures can draw up districts.
partisan electoral commissions, and redistricting has eroded your democracy completely.
Non-partisan electoral entities is the only way you will be able to get a semblance of a government of the people for the people.
Good luck.
1
What's the most logical and ethical decision?
The Roberts court will do the opposite.
2
Computer technology is capable of handling this problem. Is long past the time that we correct it.
1
If the Attorney General just vindicated Trump and if he further refuses to make public the FULL MUELLER report, how likely is it that the Trump SCOTUS is going to overrule gerrymandering?
An easy prediction: NO. The only way the GOP can “ win “ is cheating. Including stacking the Supreme Court.
Thanks, Mitch. 2020.
2
I can’t wait to see how assuring representation of all minorities is achieved without gerrymandering. Currently, areas are added or removed to assure that minorities can win legislative offices.
Let us not get our hopes up too high. I have little faith in the conservative Supreme Court. It is particularly after the Mueller report that I have realized that the winds are against us and at the backs of the Republican Party. The Supreme Court has been leaning toward right-wing partisanship ever more and more. Irregardless of the fact that Russia indeed interfered in one of our most sacred of democratic rights, the privilege to vote, or that Trump was not exonerated re obstruction of justice, added to his already multiple investigations into shady and possibly white-collar crimes, it all remains moot in the eyes of Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and possibly Roberts. Gerrymandering is the least of our problems as a country. Women ultimately will be at risk of having their autonomy, their undeniable rights to their own bodies, taken away from them. The Supreme Court is the proverbial icing on that stale old cake of greed and power and control.
1
Citizens need to truthfully look in the mirror and ask themselves if they are first and foremost an American citizen or first and foremost a member of their political party. The everyday comments in the NYT make me believe that both parties loyal members put party before country. I am a member of the party most aggressive in gerrymandering, and it makes me sad. Gerrymandering is an assault on our democracy. It should be banned by the Scotus.
1
The problem in the U.S. is we love to hate government. The primary purpose of the GOP seems to be to destroy government.
Our elections are privately run with all the private money you can stuff into it.
We don't believe in doing anything fairly. That would be naive. This is why we are awash in guns.
Guns, I fear, will be the final decider of the fate of the U.S.
This North Carolinian (living just outside of Greensboro) sadly has little faith in the SCOTUS.
Both parties have engaged in gerrymandering when they had power to do so.
It is crooked politics and steals from American voters.
3
Until the national political MSM takes off the blinders & sees & acknowledges (even to themselves) that Republicans - from Mitch McConnell to Republican offices holders in state & local governments - do not believe in our system of government, have contempt for the basic concept of democracy, majority rule, & one man one vote and cover & report on it, we will continue down this path.
The Republican Supreme Court will continue to serve their party's corporate masters & do nothing with this case...because they don't care about our democratic republic either.
My right eye is twitching and I'm having trouble breathing. This only happens during moments of great duress. I'd say the sanctioned death of democracy - bought and paid for by the supreme court and dark money merits my angst and grief.
I have about zero percent hope that the current political hacks occupying half of the supreme court seats will do the right thing. If there is one thing that speaks to the absolute rot of democracy in the US it's politicians picking their own voters.
1
The Republican Party is only interested in looting the country and the current makeup of the Supreme Court was specifically engineered to facilitate that agenda.
They are there to promote gerrymandering and voter suppression.
If you think things are bad now, good luck.
1
The SCOTUS thinks it should stay out of state election decisions unless the state is Florida, the year is 2000, and the court wants to appoint a Republican president.
1
Gerrymandering has ensured that legislatures do not represent voters, freeing them to cater to lobbyists, instead. This practice appeals to political extremists, ignores moderates who would compromise, and thereby increases the likelihood of partisan gridlock. The sibsequent weakening of Congress allows for executive overreach. It also allows for the polticization of the judiciary. All of this gets voters to toss up their hands and tune out of politics all together. Corporations like this trend just fine. Regulations are cut, or enforcement of rehulations gets ignored as revolving doors from industry to government allow the same players to man both sides.
At some point the general population will have had enough, and then things will get ugly. But that may not be for a few decades away. In the meantime, those with power will seek to grow and cement their power. And the Supreme Court will likely let them carry on for the sake of preserving states' rights, even though what gets ignored is voters' wishes.
Interestingly the SCOTUS does not oppose gerrymandering per se, but has not addressed the issue because they can't determine when it has gone too far.
The Supreme Court needs to step in and end this. But nobody is talking about a real solution that would enhance Democracy. All of the solutions are essentially the same tool - gerrymandering - applied in a way that provides an outcome more consistent with the objectives of whoever is proposing the solution. But the real solution is to get rid of the tool entirely. Gerrymandering should not exist. Congressional districts are supposed to allow small geographic units to have a say in Congress. They are not supposed to improve one party's representation. They are not supposed to lead to some perfectly proportioned representation of racial, ethnic or other identities. The only solution is to draw the lines by a relatively simple algorithm that pays no consideration to outcomes. It will only be by ignoring the outcome of the process that we will get the outcome that best serves a representative democracy.
3
Perhaps a little complex, but a system of representatives at large with preferential balloting might solve the issue of drawing maps completely.
The Republican party is the party of liars, cheats, and crooks. And, it would seem from this article, they are proud of that.
2
if you have elections by district than gerrymandering is impossible to eliminate. it will always favour suburban whites who are spread over a wider number of districts. it is biased against blacks and urban liberals as they are concentrated in fewer districts.
the constitution of the us was based on 18 century agrarian England with adjustments for slavery. is it fit for purpose in 21 century?. Perhaps not.
but at very least these flagrant abuse of system should be stopped SCOTUS
1
Since there are no national elections, just state elections, the Constitution leaves the manner in which elections are conducted to the states. The founders assumed elections would be conducted fairly because they did not anticipate the rise of political parties.
As long as people, politicians and advocacy groups are involved, voting districts will be drawn to advantage one faction over another. This includes maps drawn by supposedly nonpartisan committees such California’s vaunted Citizens Redistricting Committee. Its charter requires it to draw voting district maps that “minimize” the devision of “communities of interest” and enable “minorities to elect a candidate of their choice.” The Citizens Redistricting Committee’s charter is a gerrymandering manual.
Voting district maps should be drawn by computers programmed to ignore all factors except population density. The federal government should devise a standard computer software program that states could use for the purpose of drawing voting district maps. Residents of the states should shame their legislatures into using the program.
3
@William Case
Great idea. We just need to be sure the program can not be hacked.
@Edd
If the software were manipulated for partisan advantage, a quick glance at the district maps would instantly reveal it.
No! the Supreme Court is a Republican Insitution packed with Right Wing Republicans. These are the fine individuals who pretty well deep sixed the voting rights act. They exist for partisan gain. They will do nothing about Gerrymandering and further, they will do everything they can to restrict the right to vote by any group who MAY support Democrats.
2
Gerrymandering, dark money and the electoral college--three pillars of minority rule with voter suppression adding to the effectiveness of the strategy. Our democracy is broken and will stay broken until we force it to change.
4
The Supreme Court can easily write a ruling that both strikes down the overt gerrymander in North Carolina and also makes future challenges impossible: it just has to rule that if, and only if, the map is put forward as a naked political power grab it is illegal.
So next time the word "partisan" will not be uttered, but the result will be the same.
The best way to get rid of the gerrymander is to adopt proportional representation (which would also give third parties a voice).
In SC, there has been a fair amount of historical "collusion" between the GOP and black Democratic politicians that have resulted in "white" GOP and "black" Democratic voting district(s) (both statewide and Congressional). I would love to see districts that were NOT drawn on the basis of race and more on the basis of geographic conformity. Maybe, then, we could elect more consensus-building politicians/candidates that might actually accomplish something (both both statewide and nationally).
1
Expecting the Supreme Court to rule against gerrymandering is a fools errand. It is not their job to change the rules of the game, their "job" is only to decide if the rules are being followed fairly. They can force a change in law by not allowing an abuse of, or the intentional disregarding of the rules.
In this case, how can they decide on a "rule" that does not exist? Gerrymandering is a practice that developed from a (political) Party system that evolved after the Constitution was created.
In order to "rule" on gerrymandering, the court would have to first define gerrymandering, and then define what is NOT gerrymandering.
Gerrymandering is a post-constitutional problem that needs a new set of rules. That is the job of our legislators who are more interested in maintaining their jobs instead of doing their job - serving the people.
The challenges of 21st century society were nearly unimaginable to the founders. The logistics of delivering a vote that fairly represents every citizen has grown -along with our social structures- into a complex problem we have neglected for too long. Indeed, our whole electoral system needs an overhaul. The Supreme Court can't do that job for us -though they can help once we start. There are plenty of good ideas and innovative solutions - Publicly funding electoral campaigns, Ranked choice voting, Non-partisan citizen districting boards. Go to:
https://www.fairvote.org/the_fair_representation_act#why_rcv_for_congress
It is well within the right of the court to decide on this issue. Gerrymandering is fundamentally unconstitutional.
Up until now SCOTUS has left the issue for.states to decide. And many states have decided to bring big data into making gerrymandering favor the ruling party to the maximum extreme. That is why North Carolina is a purple state whose election results are deep red.
When an HSBC campus is split down the middle for districting purposes, what more evidence does the Supreme Court need that the gerrymandering in NC was racially as well as politically motivated? Ask Justice Roberts how he feels now about his assertion in Shelby County v. Holder that protections against this sort of action were a thing of the past and no longer necessary. Is the conservative majority on the Court just a rubber-stamp for the Republican party and its schemes to stay in power or does it stand for justice and the spirit of the Constitution?
I would be very surprised if the Supreme Court reined in gerrymandering.
Theis current court was put in place specifically to protect an America that serves the rich and corporations over the majority of the American people.
Gerrymandering is one of their most important tools.
5
Seriously?
You really think, wish, hope that the Supreme Court is going to do anything to solve our legal problems?
Never.
That's a wholly owned subsidy of the Federalist Society, right down to the secret oath (that they SAY they no longer do.)
3
The issue boils down to do voters in a democracy get to choose their representatives or is democracy subverted when the “representatives” choose their voters?
2
Gerrymandering is cheating by deed and lying by explanation.
The Grand ol' Wink and Nod.
Sadly, both are just another part of the American way.
1
The reason that North Carolina Republicans were so open--indeed insistent--that they engaged in political gerrymandering was to deny the equally plausible interpretation that they were engaged in racial gerrymandering, which would violate the 15th Amendment. ("Originalists" should understand that no one used to think racial gerrymandering was unconstitutional--now everyone agrees that it is.)
But there are other parts to the Constitution. It is hard to see how North Carolina's gerrymandering does not punish Democrats because of their affiliation and agreement with the party, in violation of the associational rights guaranteed by the first amendment. Hard to see--but four, and probably five, justices will nonetheless not notice.
Two constitutional amendments that would benefit this country. 1. Setting the number of Supreme Court justices at 9. 2. Setting congressional districts based on existing county boundaries and current postal code boundaries. There may be some small differences in the number of citizens in each district but that is better than the current ridiculous boundaries. That amendment would have to be carefully written to avoid politicians from changing boundaries for electoral benefits.
1
Rather than putting an end to gerrymandering per se, we can make it obsolete -- and all it takes is a mere majority vote of Congress, which a bit over a century ago passed public law 62-10, freezing the number of members at 435. By rescinding this measure introduced by the Nativists of that era (who didn't want more Representatives, because they would have been in urban areas, where immigrant populations were large), the number of members of Congress will once again increase with each ten-year census, so each member has fewer constituents (right now, each has to represent a whopping 720,000 or so -- making 'representativeness' impossible -- when the intent of Madison and his fellow Framers was to make Congress a picture of intimate representation in which the will of the people was heeded and heard. Madison felt that the vaster our nation became, the more vital it was to have intimate representativeness in the House, or factionalism would emerge -- and that is just what has happened, creating an abhorrent kind of polarization.
3
I sure wish the Constitution didn’t firmly establish a two-party system under which only Democrats and Republicans control all aspects of the government.
(Ironical statement)
Gerrymandering and Citizen's United are the the two pillars of salt which are destroying our country by allowing an entrenched power structure to consolidate and strengthen while drowning out the voices and sway of those who disagree. If allowed to continue we may get too far down a path where it may be next to impossible for sustain an country which works for the people instead of being ruled by despots intent on enriching themselves of our labor.
80
What's crazy here is that the Repubs don't even claim any attempt at fairness in NC. They openly admit the maps were drawn to disenfranchise Dems. When someone tells you how bad they are, believe them.
The SC has previously declined to act because the Constitution fails to provide a strict mathematical formula for apportionment. They are forced to exercise judgment - isn't that why we have judges? If one party gets 60% of the vote but only 30% of the seats, it shouldn't require a cookbook formula to know it's wrong.
Perhaps the simplest cure is to remove ALL voting districts. Have all candidates run for state-wide office, then choose the top (however many seats the state has been given)?
Combine this with one of the new systems of choosing winners, such as Maine or California is trying, and you'd see real voter representation.
I know, I know--I'm dreaming.
It's a republican supreme court, of course it won't do anything to hurt republican attempts to steal elections.
As much as reform is needed to eliminate gerrymandering, my guess will be that the Supreme Court will kick it back down to the States.
1
Maybe the Supreme Court will do something about partisan districting, but I'm not optimistic. It may be that the only solution is a constitutional amendment. Here's my proposal for a 28th Amendment:
Section 1. Voting districts within the States shall be contiguous and compact and shall be as nearly equal in population as practicable. A municipality established pursuant to the law of its State shall not be divided between or among districts except as necessary to ensure equality of population within the districts.
Section 2. No district shall be drawn for the purpose of favoring or disfavoring any candidate or political party.
Section 3. The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
3
The notion that no map can be free of bias, is an odd argument to counter against addressing the problem - i.e. if there is no perfect system, why try to better the massively deficient?
Moreover, the pro-status quo argument massively over-estimates the likely contentiousness of the most obvious fix to the problem - the rest of the world hands the problem of electoral boundaries to non-partisan electoral commissions, who draw boundaries based on easy-to-see geographical lines. The results are rarely controversial.
1
This will be a test for conservative members of SCOTUS who claim to be originalists. It is time to return to the founder’s intent of having elected officials represent the people in their districts, not warring political parties.
1
I can understand why the court is reluctant to weigh-in on gerrymandering. A legislative solution is the proper mechanism for addressing voter law.
However, minorities cannot properly correct the abuse through law in a state already gerrymandered. By definition, there's no way for the legislature to unravel gerrymandering when the gerrymander enabled a super majority to control the legislature. That really only leaves two options. Ballot initiatives and the courts.
Ballot initiatives are only viable for 24 states and the rules vary quite wildly so that's out. We need the court to get off the bench and course correct. How the court can best decide the issue is an open question though. That's why the justices don't want to touch it.
I personally prefer logical divisions. Logical neighborhoods and communities should vote together. A&T is obviously a logical community. They should vote together and share a representative. I share a representative with St. George over three hundred miles away. I can walk a few blocks east and be in another district where we share the same assembly woman. That is not a logical community.
1
It is not possible to get 10 of 13 seats when approximately 50% of the votes were for Democratic candidates unless there are massively disparate numbers of voters in the Democratic districts than in those controlled by the Republicans. This, like the electoral college, gives greater impact to each Republican voter compare to Democrats in the same state. It is not simply a matter of intent, it has the effect of reducing the power of one group of voters over another.
No, it won't end gerrmandering because in the vast majority of cases it inures to the benefit of republicans. It's strange what sort of issues the Supreme Court will get into and what ones it will stay out of. No adult in this country thinks the Supreme Court is unbiased. It's probably the most political active branch in Washington, and by ensuring Republican victories, it ensures it's own survival.
3
Mr Wines has it right -- the technology that makes gerrymandering so destruction may provide the solution. The plaintiffs presented evidence both from the one expert with 3000 maps and from another who provided 24,000 simulated maps. Of those, only .7% produced 10 Republican seats. The usual result was between 6 and 7 seats each. The simulations also showed the severe extent of the packing and cracking of the individual districts that produced the gerrymandering. Several amicus briefs attested to the strength of the technology (including one by Eric Lander of DNA and large Data-base fame one by " 27 ELECTION LAW, SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE, AND EMPIRICAL LEGAL SCHOLARS" and one by "MATHEMATICIANS,
LAW PROFESSORS, AND STUDENTS IN SUPPORT" of the plaintiffs. These briefs describe a cottage industry in the computer simulations and describe one of the algorithms used -- a Markov chain monte carlo simulation.
This technology answers the problem that had vexed the court for 30 yrs "how much is enough." By showing what typical election results would have been without gerrymandering, these simulations enable the court to judge the damage done by the gerrymandering.
North Carolina had literally no response to the simulations. They ignored them, claiming the plaintiffs' use of formulas was unsound. They also tried a novel elections clause argument that was thoroughly demolished. by the LWV.
I hope the strong simulation evidence will change the vote of at least one justice.
While partisan gerrymandering seems inherently unfair to most people, the question before the court is, what constitutional and/or legal basis is there for deciding whether it is unfair? The Constitution leaves the matter up to the states. The only firm court precedents are against racial gerrymandering and for one-person-one-vote. There is no federal law regarding partisan gerrymandering, and states such as NC and MD are free to do as they please. Without legislative guidance, the court has ducked this issue.
If the court views this in strict constitutional terms, they may say it's not unconstitutional. If the court views this as a threat to democracy that must be addressed, it might be unconstitutional.
I'm betting on a 5-4 decision one way or the other.
2
As a Canadian I find the undemocratic nature of the American electoral process so weird. and why do states control how federal elections are held.
You could learn a lot from the Canadian system of having an independent electoral agency (Elections Canada) operate the elections process and the redistribution process. The only thing close to political controversy in our redistribution process is that rural and remote constituencies tend to have fewer voters than urban ones but even though that may tend to favour conservatives the issue has always been focused more on keeping the geographic size of constituencies manageable. We certainly do not have the gerrymandering that you do. Of course proportional representation could solve that problem.
5
Not in 100 years. Forget about it. The only way to solve most of the problems in Congress, lobbying interests, etc. is to only allow only a single term for any position in government which is assigned by people voting.
1
I think it would be hard to have any government continuity if there was no one re-elected. Every 2 years there would be 435 new house representatives. It would take them a year to figure out how to turn the lights on.
If "Citizens United" is any guide, the Supreme Court will say there are no Constitutional limits or legal standards regarding gerrymandering. Inevitably, those who have money and power will get what they want. And because Democratic gerrymandering pales in comparison to what Republicans have done, such a ruling would only favor Republicans, which the majority conservative Justices on the Court surely know.
7
I live in NC. Our situation is dire. But the Supreme Court as currently constituted is not going to do a thing about it. The new American reality is rule by an increasingly extreme Republican minority.
182
@J
Gerrymandering is unethical, immoral and wrong. It undermines the foundation of a democratic society. I, too, doubt the high court will do anything about it.
11
@J
Yes, it is a dire situation. I live in a NC gerrymandered district, and have felt like my vote hasn't counted for years. We need help.
7
The "winners" in this case, the Republicans, must realize that the tide will turn eventually and they will find themselves in a similar situation of being essentially locked out. It is astonishing that "winning" at a party level has become the goal rather than winning for the nation. When will the morals of these politicians start keeping them awake and constantly nudging so that they will accept the unfairness of their efforts?
60
@Cemal Ekin
In the past, corrupt Republicans have successfully relied upon Democrats' adherence to our liberal principles, thereby precluding us from engaging in the profoundly anti-American and corrupt practices such as gerrymandering, blocking judicial nominees and violating laws willy nilly.
14
@Cemal Ekin I think you are making the mistake of thinking that Republicans have any intention whatsoever of applying the same rules to themselves that they apply to the Democrats. They don't play fair, and don't even really pretend to play fair.
For instance, in the most famous election law case of my lifetime, Bush v Gore, the 5 Republicans who voted for Bush specifically said in their opinions that their decision only applied to this case and could not be cited as precedent for any other case. In other words, the point of their decision was for their guy to win, not to do what the law demanded (which was of course to count the votes).
8
@Been There
Do you know how the word "borked" entered the language" , do you know why Democratic party controlled the South--and the Senate for more than 100 years?
2
One way to avoid the endless wars over redistricting would be to allot representatives to various parties based of their percentage of the statewide vote. Of course, that could mean a local person would not be your congressman and that parties would have more power in the selection of a slate.
1
One doubts that gerrymandering can be ended by anything short of a constitutional amendment, defining how congressional districts must be configured -- a way that makes gerrymandering all but impossible. If all districts had to be identically shaped rectangles, differing in size only according to population density, would-be "gerrymanderers" would be totally frustrated. Any portions of those rectangles that fell beyond the state borders would not be included in the population count. The rule also could be that those rectangles be designed so that a minimum number crossed that state border. Mathematicians would find that an easy task to perform. Politicians would go mad trying to beat the system.
4
Those rectangular districts would have to be adjusted for population. If purely geographic, it could result in a district population 10 to have equal representation to one of 500,000 voters. Randomization, based on both population and geographic area, is essential to the elimination of antidemocratic gerrymandering, a task that computers, which are not yet partisan, could easily be programmed to achieve.
@John V. Yes that is the suggestion. The rectangles would be proportionate in shape, but vary in area to match population count.
It’s interesting to me that most of the commenters seem to think that this case is obvious. So simple that “a child can see it.” What they don’t seem to get is that the question of constitutional vs unconstitutional is not the same as the question of good vs bad. Of course, Gerrymandering is an outrageous affront to democracy. But is it unconstitutional? I have a hard time seeing that.
Article XV says “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.” That’s why the court has shot down racial Gerrymandering in the past. I don’t see how they can legitimately address political Gerrymandering, without an amendment. And unless my fellow Americans (from both parties) start voting a whole lot better, that’s not going to happen.
Of course, this could be yet another case where the Supreme Court legislates from the bench, but I don’t see this court doing that.
5
The 14th amendment provides for “equal protection under the law.“ This should provide the rationale to eliminate partisan gerrymandering.
It's funny that the gerrymandered Supreme Court gets to decide a case of gerrymandering.
16
@Rick Gage Sad is the word I would use!
3
There should be simple rules to make sure that the proportion of representatives within the state reasonably follows the proportion of registered voters. Arbitrarily splitting municipalities (e.g. low-income areas, college dorms, etc.) should be eliminated. It CAN'T be that hard!
2
I questions seriously whether SCOTUS, who gave us Citizens United and Bush v. Gore among others, will give this case a fair hearing. Reading Citizens United and Bush v. Gore is like reading a first year law student's attempt to rationalize a bizarre legal argument. I hope and pray I am wrong.
4
The basic concept is one person/one vote, meaning that all votes should count equally. Gerrymandering flaunts that, and is unconstitutional by definition. But to dream that our Supreme Court will do anything about it is just that, dreaming. The Court is so political ala Citizens United, that for we citizens to get a fair reading of our rights is preposterous. Getting rid of gerrymandering is a step in the right direction, but going to a ranked voting system and squeezing out the politics of it all, is about the only way to allow citizens to actually run their country.
4
Many Democrat controlled states like Illinois similarly exclude Republicans. Any solution will have effects on both major political parties.
4
@Richard Winchester
It was a few democrats who did this on their own. It was a well orchestrated deliberate exploitation on the right funded and thought out by ALEC. the left would gladly lose this battle to help win the war for democracy.
Republican "justices," like all other modern Republicans, deeply fear and adamantly oppose American constitutional democracy.
It will be a delightfully shocking surprise if the anti-Constitutionally seated Republican majority on the current Supreme Court protects America's withering democratic processes from Republicans' corruptly partisan gerrymandering.
3
if the united states of america was a real country, it would follow the lead of many other democracies that have bipartisan panels or commissions that make sure gerrymandering isn't possible.
ah, forgot the usa is exceptional--or so it bellows to the rest of the world.
for example, i heard an senator a few months ago say on cnn the america's great because it's the only country in the world with a legal system that says you're innocent until prove guilty.
the rest of us can only wish because we're thrown into jail for any old reason.
6
While the overall 2018 House election had a fair result, with Democrats getting 54% of the vote and 54% of the seats, there are several larger states (10+ reps) with significant vote share vs. seat share discrepancies, based on the Cook Political Report:
Democratic Vote Share / Democratic Seat Share
California 67/87
New Jersey 61/92
North Carolina 49/25
Ohio 48/25
Texas 48/36
Georgia 48/36
At the state legislative level, there is a much more pervasive effect of gerrymandering in favor of Republicans, as documented by an AP investigation ("Analysis indicates partisan gerrymandering has benefited GOP") in the 2016 election. I have not seen similar results for 2018.
P.S. NYT - Please create graphics showing how the state and federal vote share and seat share stack up, such as scatter plots with the Democratic vote share on one axis and seat share on the other.
4
@David Doney
Vote share doesn't translate into seat share -- a homogeneous state which is 60/40 one party will give 100% of the seats to that party without gerrymandering.
I remember first learning about gerrymandering in 8th grade social studies...and thinking that the teacher was joking. For, even with an 8th-grade sense of the world, it seemed impossible that a nation that works so hard to indoctrinate their children with the notion of "freedom" would tolerate something like that. It still seems like a joke, only a darker and darker one.
8
Why not require a randomly generated map using demographic data without any party affiliation, and possibly regenerate it each election cycle?
3
Americans have an ethical crisis that started with slavery. They lie constantly and steal and cheat. Look at your President. It's expected of successful people. Tell me if you can call Jeff Bezos a highly ethical person, the same for Mitch McConnell. They exemplify the model of moral less people. It's at one of the hearts of the American soul. Face up to it and stop it.
5
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court will hear arguments over whether such partisanship violates the Constitution, wrote the author.
That i don't know. It surely helps to keep away from the ballots all those saying my vote doesn't count which is one of it many purposes.
Gerrymandering is grossly ridiculous as much of the whole electoral process which is much more about, represent my corporation campaign contributions than represent them. A plutocrat's dream.
This is America.
5
The opening paragraphs suggest that gerrymandering of black voters is common. That is not true. Gerrymandering of racial minorities violates civil rights laws and is consistently struck down by the Supreme Court.
2
The real lesson is that Democrats need to stop crying into their cappuccinos and get down to the business of practical politics of getting candidates elected even where the other party has a "natural majority". The cry seems to be "why won't these idiots buy our product" instead of "what can we offer that they will want".
You don't have to gerrymander all the seats to disenfranchise a section of the electorate.
Montgomery County Md has an 9 member council
Four of the seats are at large.
Were they all apportioned to districts rural interests might be represented.
At large representation allows the down county areas to overwhelm rural interests in an election, and their voice is not heard.
Political parties have no constitutional standing yet they have captured the levers of government from congressional districts to SCOTUS seats. Gerrymandering and Gorsuch are prime examples of the poison the parties have inflicted upon us.
Redistricting should be performed by a citizen's commission that is as independent as possible and operate under the legal guidance of state supreme courts.
The citizens on the commission should reflect the state's fractional proportion of registered voters by party membership and independents. Age and gender quotas would also be useful.
Commission members could be elected statewide prior to each 10-year census, sit for one term and be prohibited from serving on future redistricting commissions.
It's possible to 'game' any of these efforts but some simple base rules would certainly help make the process cleaner than it is now in most states.
9
As a Canadian, I find it very hard to believe that the federal government cannot appoint an independent re-districting commission. We have a commission and it is totally free from political interference. There are rules as to how to apportion districts. With few exceptions for largely uninhabited areas in the north, districts cannot be more than 25% above or below the average number of voters. The only complaints are about issues such as contiguous areas when bisected by a major river, as happened here in BC. It's not rocket science. Allowing states to decide without restraint for fairness invites the kind of mess you now have. Whatever happened to voters getting representation equal to their votes?
7
@D Marcot As a north carolinian - and have lived in different states, and different countries, I am wondering the same.
It is time to get rid of congressional districts with winner take all and go to a system of proportional representation. The congressional districts now are so large that it is impossible to represent a cohesive group of residents other than an arbitrary set of boundaries. Gerrymandering under the current system of districts will continue in subtle or obvious ways whether congressional, legislative, county boards or city councils.
If a state has nine members of congress, it should send a delegation in proportion to the vote that parties obtained. A delegation might have 4 from party A, 3 from party B and 2 from C; therefore better representing the varied interests of the constituents in a state using ranked voting.
4
@carl
Good luck Lani. She brought this idea up 35 years ago when Bill Clinton was President. The entire Constitution would have to be repealed for this idea to pass Constitutional muster.
@Shamrock Think big Shamrock! We need to move to a better democracy and not remained trapped in the 18th century. i really do not think the entire constitution would need to be repealed just a few lines.
The question here is not whether gerrymandering will be ended, but rather how it's defined. I imagine the Supreme Court will be reluctant to define outright what constitutes gerrymandering.
5
@Texas1836
I guess gerrymandering is like what a learned British judge once said about pornography. "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it" Gerrymandering is obvious in North Carolina. If that can't be fixed by the Supreme Court, there is no hope.
2
@Texas1836
When sports fans of opposing teams agree on every decision by an umpire or referee is when it will be easy to easily define and recognize gerrymandering.
@Texas1836
So far, the Republican majority has been reluctant to do anything at all to mandate free and fair elections.
Indeed, Bush v Gore, Citizens United, and Shelby v Holder are clear evidence that the Republican justices are determined to destroy American constitutional democracy.
2
Of course it violates the Constitution. A child can see that. If those 9 ideologues can’t figure that out then why even have a Supreme Court? Of course what can you expect from the judicial body that gave us such great decisions as Dred Scott and Citizens United? I fear for the future of this great country. I really do.
150
@Mike L
I join you in my fear for the future of the USA and with it that of a world infused with the liberal aspirations that this country has espoused even if not always followed.
7
@Mike L
Perhaps you would like to elaborate as to which part of the Constitution that gerrymandering violates. Regardless of how districts are drawn, everyones can still vote and all votes count the same. As far as I can tell, there is no guarantee in the Constitution that your favored candidate must have a reasonable chance of winning.
@Mike L
Since there are no national elections, just state elections, the Constitution leaves the manner in which elections are conducted to the states. Unfortunately, the founders assumed elections would be conducted fairly because they did not anticipate the rise of political parties.
As long as people, politicians and advocacy groups are involved, voting districts will be drawn to advantage on faction over another. This includes maps drawn by supposedly nonpartisan committees such California’s vaunted Citizens Redistricting Committee. Its charter requires it to draw voting district maps that “minimize” the devision of “communities of interest” and enable “minorities to elect a candidate of their choice.” The Citizens Redistricting Committee’s charter is a gerrymandering manual.
Voting district maps should be drawn by computers programmed to ignore all factors except population density. The federal government should devise a standard computer software program that states could use for the purpose of drawing voting district maps. Residents of the states should shame their legislatures into using the program.
4
Gerrymandering has been less than subtly chipping away at our civil rights and our republic for decades. Will the conservative majority of the SCOTUS have the courage to do the right thing or will they remain in the thrall of the power which gerrymandering has given the far right? We will soon see. I wish I had any confidence in Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh, and more in Roberts.
78
@Davina
Gerrymandering is done by both sides. Here in New Jersey, democrats has redrawn the map so many times to constantly chip away any power republicans have. If that wasn't enough, last year they wanted to redraw the map again to virtually eliminate republican presence in NJ for at least the next decade. Only thing that stopped them is because they got caught and the media outed them. But rest assured, they will pursue this again once it quiets down.
8
@Dennis
And yes, to an extent that's true. However when (as in this case) it's not only kicked back by the courts, but then the same case kicked back *again*, it becomes far beyond the standard & hoary old "both sides do it" toss-off.
In this case the ideological chutzpah behind the redistricting was not only brazen, but downright shameless. So let's not be *too* quick to dismiss an issue just because we don't want "our guys" to have to accept responsibility for what is clearly a completely not just un-, but ANTI-Constitutional act. :)
10
It is true absolutely that the Dems do it when they have the chance (although statistically not to the same degree as Republicans). However in the case of New Jersey, many prominent Democrats joined hands with moderates and GOP members to oppose it (ie Eric Holder). This is an important difference. With the exception of Schwarzenegger, what prominent Republican has done the same?
32
Certainly I can see why the SCOTUS doesn’t want to be involved in map drawing, but how can it be so difficult to determine when a state is gerrymandered? How difficult can it be to point out that a states districts clearly do not follow the overall voting patterns of the people? That, it seems to me, is all that’s important here - the reason why a map doesn’t align with it’s voting patterns (whether gerrymandering or some other cause) is irrelevant. If a map doesn’t line up, it should be tossed out for failing to properly represent the people.
If the SCOTUS will not be ‘kingmaker’ and politicians are too corrupt to do the job, maybe it’s time for a new approach. Perhaps we should give all map drawing power to an objective algorithm instead, who’s overriding goal is to match the districts drawn with the average of the state’s overall voting patterns over the past several elections. The idea being that districts should align with the overall votes. If 60% of the state voted republican on average over the past 10 years, then republicans should be competitive in as close to 60% of the districts as possible. Why not just take the human element out of the equation?
39
@Mr. Adams
Who gets to write the algorithm? What are the criteria for sorting? Should voting patters be a consideration at all? We could easily sort by logical boundaries like geography or population. Someone has to make these decisions. You're not taking the human element out of the equation. You're simply making it more opaque. You'll need a programmer who can read code in order to understand the formula.
States with ballot initiatives seem to mostly favor non-partisan or bi-partisan commissions. Even states with single Party majorities no longer get to unilaterally draw election maps. That's the idea anyway. There's general a transparency requirement and a legal liability as well. The legislature has to publicly vote down a non-partisan map. If the legislature rejects the map, opposition can sue.
7
@Mr. Adams
You answered your own question why we can’t take out the human element when you said “politicians are too corrupt to do the job.” No one else is authorized to put an equitable system in place.
End it? Frankly I expect the stolen Court to codify it.
40
@SR
How long before the Russian-Republicans on the court "interpret" the Constitution to say that Democrats, women, and not-whites get only 3/5 of a vote?
5
One aspect of this story the writer omitted is the legal team representing Common Cause. The three lead attorneys are Emmet Bondurant, Edwin Speas, and Greg Diskant. Mr. Bondurant argued the Wesberry v Saunders (376 U.S. 1 (1964)). He won and this is why today every congressional district in America has roughly the same number of voters.
Another aspect is the rulings the Federal District Court, Greensboro, issued - No. 1:16-CV-1164. Circuit Judge Wynn wrote the majority opinion in which Senior District Judge Britt
concurred. District Judge Osteen, Jr., wrote a separate opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part.
There were two rulings. The initial ruling from the trial, the second due to SCOTUS sending it back for review after they granted the NC Legislature a temporary stay. Both rulings are readily available for the public to read. If one reads both, every single point of law and citation of fact makes clear that cited Articles and Amendments were in fact violated by the Legislature.
No one can know how SCOTUS will rule. I will argue that Judge Wynn's meticulously written rulings leave SCOTUS no legal room, according to an originalist's view of our constitution and the amendments, to rule in favor of the legislature.
8
@LinZhouXi As one of the Plaintiffs in the Common Cause case, I wholeheartedly agree that the lawyers in the case have done a magnificent job in presenting the case and anticipating the standing issue which was raised in the Wisconsin gerrymandering case. While the one Republican judge on the three-judge panel dissented in part because of his disagreement involving the packing of Democrats in three districts, he concurred with the majority that there was both standing and a constitutional violation. The 200 plus page majority opinion is extremely well written. I think that commenters are expressing despair over the makeup of the court without fully understanding the NC case.
1
None of us expect justice from the Supreme Court. This isn’t that kin of country.
7
Hey Justice Roberts, the Founders weren't interested in "kingmaking" either.
So, they set up a system of voting every two years(!) in the House so representatives would be on a knife edge all the time.
Be accountable to your constituents or be gone in short order.
Computer assisted drawing of districts was beyond their imagination I'm sure.
Today, it's the state legislatures - right and left - that make kings. House members in districts with zero competition and willful sabatoge of voting power.
This one is easy Mr. Chief Justice.
Just look up and over the partisan noise and manufactured minutiae of the moment to the higher calling and reasoning above it all.
Up there you'll see the intentions of our Founders, the plain language of the Constitution and the fresh-flowing, cleansing stream of participatory democracy.
Sans kings.
16
So long as gerrymandering primarily benefits Republicans, the partisan GOP 5 justice majority will allow it, no matter how undemocratic and unfair. Count on it.
10
The USSC is itself gerrymandered. It should have a majority of liberal justices, given that Scalia died on Obama’s watch. Why would the five conservatives care about fairness and voter rights? They’ve already perverted our democracy with the Citizens United decision, lowered the bar on political corruption and ended Federal oversight of red states allowing them to pass minority disenfranchisement laws.
The majority conservative court is explicitly concerned with entrenching Republican and corporate power for a minority president and senate (see the disparity in votes per senator). They are in place to neuter progressive legislation should a progressive somehow be elected in 2020. They are justice denied, not justice served.
24
@Xoxarle
Yes. The Supreme Court should always have a liberal majority. How else can we have fairness. Likewise district should be drawn to favor liberals. That’s the only way to rid ourselves of gerrymandering.
I’m a liberal and I’m equally opposed to gerrymandering done by Democrats or Republicans. I don’t see much evidence Republicans are ideologically opposed to any dirty tricks that tilt the playing field their way, whether it be voter roll purges, limits to postal voting, disenfranchising voters via ID laws, arbitrary fines to deter voter registration of students, partisan state control of the voting mechanisms.
And of course the deafening silence over clear misconduct in Carolinas, by Trump and Republican leadership, after endless bleating about entirely fake accusations of patterns of voter fraud.
If the Courts treat gerrymandering as they did with "Citizens United", then this is a failed democracy where the minority gets to win elections, an outrage. As it is when 'money' speaks, and controls political discourse and maintains privilege and entitlement as a matter of course. How could we recover our trust if the Court remains so partisan?
27
@manfred Marcus Manfred, this is so it. Chief Justice Roberts worried that addressing gerrymandering would turn the court into a kind of "electoral kingmaker". But he was able to bravely overcome this worry when it came to helping the rich through Citizens United. What a guy.
5
I hope all of the readers have read Reynolds v Sims and understand that congressional district have to be redrawn periodically to keep the districts with the same number of people. When they are redrawn it can always be argued it is unfair to a certain group much like every call or non call by a sports referee can be viewed as fair or unfair. I’m not sure all of the readers know that the lines will always be redrawn pursuant to Reynolds v Sims. That case is known as the one man one vote case and is widely recognized as a step forward for representational democracy.
1
@Shamrock This is an interesting point. Once upon a time, congressional district maps generally looked utterly boring: each district a clump of counties creating a relatively regular polygon shape of some sort. Some House districts were whole states, as in the case of Illinois, which chose two of its members of the House at-large from 1912 to 1948. A number of other states dabbled in at-large districts on and off. One person, one vote put an end to that, except for states entitled to only one House rep. That doesn't mean, however, that to meet the one person, one vote requirement, districts have to look like salamanders, snowflakes or scythes, a pair of same connected by a highway that no one lives on. Doesn't Iowa do a good job with its redistricting commission, at least on congressional districts? (I can't speak to the state legislative districts.) As Iowa changes politically (more Republican in 2016, more Democratic in 2018), so go the four congressional districts. I am sure the plaintiffs will make it quite clear that our goal is not to be fair to political parties, but to citizens, to not intentionally inflate or decrease their power based on where they live. The Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment doesn't say anything about parties. No individuals, however, should feel they must move to another state or district (when keeping your job tells you you can't) in order to be equally represented with their fellow citizens.
3
Odd that you wound need a Supreme Court to rule on such gross miss carriage of justice yet here we are. The republicans lie cheat and steal their way in office why would the republicans controlled Supreme Court be any different?
10
Deliberate political gerrymandering is wrong, but calls for "impartial" district design are naive.
Imagine a hypothetical state that qualifies for 9 representatives. In this state 1/3 of the people live in the only big city, 1/3 live in the surrounding suburbs, and 1/3 live in the small towns and rural areas outside the metroplex.
Now how to "fairly" divide the state into districts, overt politics aside? 3 reps each for the urban-suburban-rural contingents? 9 pie-shaped districts, each containing a share of state demographics? Some other strategies that account for cultural and historic heritage?
Here's an idea, just for thought:
If one party claims that Gerrymandering doesn't happen or doesn't make a difference, let them pass a law by which the party NOT in power gets to draw the new district maps. If it were true that the maps make no difference, they should agree.
But if they refuse to turn over mapping to the other party, there's our clearest proof that they know if makes a difference.
And if they know it makes a difference, they know they're going against the principle of all our votes being equal, and against the protections of the Constitution.
18
Would really like to think that SCOTUS would be an effective check on this, finally. Something more than a ruling so narrow as to be meaningless. But of course the Court majority was placed there by a party that counts on gerrymandering to win.
51
No chance at all, as long as gerrymandering works generally to the advantage of Republicans and the Supreme Court is controlled by partisan right-wingers.
21
Given the Citizens United decision and the strictly partisan appointment of Kavanaugh we Americans know that a good democratic outcome of the gerrymandering cases is not to be had. Our democracy has been hijacked by fringe elements.
52
The best we can hope from the Supreme Court is acknowledgement of the issue. It’s not their job to come up with the answer. Additionally, Mapping districts is a state function. Finally, those in power have little incentive to change things. This is all on the citizens to change.
Perhaps the best solution is to get rid of districts all together and make the House of Representatives a statewide office.
3
@UScentral: If those in power have no incentive to change (to give up some of that power), how are the citizens going to change anything? State legislatures excell as power centers. They control legislation and constitutional amendments on apportionment, and they can override referendums. We have been here before. It was an activist Supreme Court in Reynolds v. Simms that did away with the practice of giving each of a state’s counties an equal number of delegates in the upper house of a state’s legislature. State legislatures would not have changed that in a thousand years. This Supreme Court is activist only in reactionary ways, however.
The current extreme right wing majority on SCOTUS will undoubtedly rule in favor of partisan gerrymandering. There really isnt any question how they will rule but there is a question as to how broad the scope of that ruling will be. The current "conservative" justices are fierce partisans and will tow the Republican Party line. They have no integrity or honor and "doing the right thing" never enters into their decision making equation, they are where they are solely to serve their political and, most likely, financial interests.
21
Thus a low-quality representative like Ted Budd is able to self-declare as a "deplorable." That is disgusting.
4
The Republican party abandoned democracy, representative government and fair play decades ago.
Only the willfully blind and the willfully tyrannical would vote to sustain the unConstitutional gerrymander that condones the corrupt wolf management of the hen house.
Judge Roberts has occasionally displayed moments of sanity and reason during his tenure.
If he votes to sustain the Republican criminal political syndicate and its corrupt gerrymander, his reputation will be shattered.
Let's keep the pressure up on him.
The Republic hangs partly in the balance.
In the meantime, the Republican Party is just fine with political hijacking, authoritarianism and completely trashing democracy.
Remember in 2020.
113
@Socrates
You're from NJ. You know what democrats have done in regards to gerrymandering in this state. This is not just a republican issue.
5
@Dennis
I support the eradication of the unConstitutional gerrymander by all parties, right and left.
Do you ?
51
I love your comments but this is not a one party issue. When we buy into the tribalism we support and nurture it. The truth is sufficient, gerrymandering is undemocratic and needs to be outlawed. Clearly, in an age of algorithms we can proportionately divide states. Let’s support geometry.
17
this is probably the most important case the supreme court will decide for many years. the intent of the NC republicans to create gerrymandered districts in their favor was admitted by the individual(s) who drew up the maps. the sinking feeling in my gut tells me that the supreme court, on a 5 to 4 vote, will allow the gerrymandering to continue on the basis that it's all "just politics" and it's the responsibility of the voters, not the court, to force a change.
34
@dukerwt
Which of course, in classic Catch-22 territory, they wouldn't be able to do. :\
6
Isn’t it possible to come up with a geographical algorithm to draw districts? Can’t we get humans completely out of this process?
6
That was how the Republicans helped draw their supermajority districts in NC. They used the algorithms for evil. We need a law that the algorithm can’t favor a certain party.
4
I’d like to see some ideas in print. One I have heard about was that all districts had to be four sided rectangles unless one side was a river. I’ve heard of mathematical solutions too. Let’s quit beating our breasts and come up with solutions to debate.
5
Gerrymandering favors Republican candidates. Given this fact, is there any doubt how the Supreme Court will rule?
67
Having grown up in Maryland, gerrymandering is deep in the DNA. Attempts including court cases have not changed anything. The result is not only a single political party in control but the leadership of that party is unmovable. This is a national problem that only the Supreme Court can turn over. If there is one political truth is that self serving behavior trumps self-sacrifice every time
15
There is a simple refusal by courts, legislatures and politicians to assign congressional districts by some objective criterion. There is a simple way to divide districts that will eliminate the partisan bickering and sought advantage. Place a grid over a map and assign the grid squares by lottery. The grid and lottery determine how a district is mapped not political power. If this process is done by people blind to political advantage of all parties, then politicians might once again work for their constituents. Few politicians will like this idea but the American political process is not devoted to making politicians happy but to representing voters. Gerrymandering districts ultimately hurts voters and none should support it.
21
@Cyril The grid approach isn't correct because population density varies a lot and representatives are supposed to represent people rather than land. If you're looking for mathematical approaches to congressional districts, there are some serious attempts out there, like this one: https://phys.org/news/2017-11-algorithm-combat-gerrymandering.html
Gerrymandering is a national disgrace, but if this Supreme Court does anything about it I'll be pleasantly surprised--nay, shocked.
88