SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
'Historic Opportunity': Supreme Court to Hear Partisan Gerrymandering Case
"Politicians should not be choosing their voters, voters should be choosing their politicians," said Karen Hobert Flynn, president of Common Cause
Jun 19, 2017
In a move that has the potential to "set a landmark precedent," the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday announced it will hear a Wisconsin gerrymandering case alleging the Republican-controlled legislature drew congressional disticts in a way that illegally discriminates against Democratic candidates and voters.
"This is a historic opportunity to address one of the biggest problems facing our electoral system."
--Wendy Weiser, director of the Brennan Center for Justice's Democracy Program
The plaintiffs in the case--a dozen Wisconsin residents--argue "Republican legislative leaders authorized a secretive and exclusionary mapmaking process aimed at securing for their party a large advantage that would persist no matter what happened in future elections."
Recent high-profile gerrymandering cases have focused primarily on the racial impact of redistricting. In May, the Supreme Court deemed North Carolina's map unconstitutional on the grounds that district lines were drawn with the intention of "reducing the voting power of minorities," as Mother Jones put it.
Currently, however, there are several cases--in Pennsylvania and Maryland, for instance--in which partisan redistricting is the center of attention.
Given the impact gerrymandering has had on recent elections, the Wisconsin case is being hailed as potentially "revolutionary," one that could have "massive implications for redistricting and political power in America."
Last November, a panel of federal judges ruled 2-1 that Wisconsin Republicans in 2011 designed the congressional map to "make it more difficult for Democrats, compared to Republicans, to translate their votes into seats." Given the Supreme Court's decision to take on the case, the judges' ruling could reverberate nationally.
"Both parties draw congressional and legislative districts to their own advantage," the Washington Post's Robert Barnes notes. "But Republicans have more to lose because they control so many more state legislatures."
Voter advocacy groups, which have long denounced GOP-drawn congressional districts as discriminatory and blatantly undemocratic, were quick to celebrate the Supreme Court's move.
"For too long, the important task of redistricting has resembled a back-alley brawl: no rules, no referees, and no holds barred," Dan Vicuna, the national redistricting manager for Common Cause, said in a statement. "Technology has made it easier than ever for self-interested legislators to manipulate districts for political advantage, so it is essential that courts step in to protect voters' fundamental constitutional rights."
Karen Hobert Flynn, president of Common Cause, added that gerrymandering "drive[s] too many Americans from our democratic process because citizens feel their votes don't count and sadly in states like Wisconsin and North Carolina today many of those citizens are absolutely right."
"Politicians should not be choosing their voters, voters should be choosing their politicians," she concluded.
Wendy Weiser, director of the Brennan Center for Justice's Democracy Program, also applauded the Supreme Court's announcement on Monday, calling it "a historic opportunity to address one of the biggest problems facing our electoral system."
"Gerrymandering has become so aggressive, extreme, and effective that there is an urgent need for the Supreme Court to finally step in and set boundaries," she said.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
In a move that has the potential to "set a landmark precedent," the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday announced it will hear a Wisconsin gerrymandering case alleging the Republican-controlled legislature drew congressional disticts in a way that illegally discriminates against Democratic candidates and voters.
"This is a historic opportunity to address one of the biggest problems facing our electoral system."
--Wendy Weiser, director of the Brennan Center for Justice's Democracy Program
The plaintiffs in the case--a dozen Wisconsin residents--argue "Republican legislative leaders authorized a secretive and exclusionary mapmaking process aimed at securing for their party a large advantage that would persist no matter what happened in future elections."
Recent high-profile gerrymandering cases have focused primarily on the racial impact of redistricting. In May, the Supreme Court deemed North Carolina's map unconstitutional on the grounds that district lines were drawn with the intention of "reducing the voting power of minorities," as Mother Jones put it.
Currently, however, there are several cases--in Pennsylvania and Maryland, for instance--in which partisan redistricting is the center of attention.
Given the impact gerrymandering has had on recent elections, the Wisconsin case is being hailed as potentially "revolutionary," one that could have "massive implications for redistricting and political power in America."
Last November, a panel of federal judges ruled 2-1 that Wisconsin Republicans in 2011 designed the congressional map to "make it more difficult for Democrats, compared to Republicans, to translate their votes into seats." Given the Supreme Court's decision to take on the case, the judges' ruling could reverberate nationally.
"Both parties draw congressional and legislative districts to their own advantage," the Washington Post's Robert Barnes notes. "But Republicans have more to lose because they control so many more state legislatures."
Voter advocacy groups, which have long denounced GOP-drawn congressional districts as discriminatory and blatantly undemocratic, were quick to celebrate the Supreme Court's move.
"For too long, the important task of redistricting has resembled a back-alley brawl: no rules, no referees, and no holds barred," Dan Vicuna, the national redistricting manager for Common Cause, said in a statement. "Technology has made it easier than ever for self-interested legislators to manipulate districts for political advantage, so it is essential that courts step in to protect voters' fundamental constitutional rights."
Karen Hobert Flynn, president of Common Cause, added that gerrymandering "drive[s] too many Americans from our democratic process because citizens feel their votes don't count and sadly in states like Wisconsin and North Carolina today many of those citizens are absolutely right."
"Politicians should not be choosing their voters, voters should be choosing their politicians," she concluded.
Wendy Weiser, director of the Brennan Center for Justice's Democracy Program, also applauded the Supreme Court's announcement on Monday, calling it "a historic opportunity to address one of the biggest problems facing our electoral system."
"Gerrymandering has become so aggressive, extreme, and effective that there is an urgent need for the Supreme Court to finally step in and set boundaries," she said.
In a move that has the potential to "set a landmark precedent," the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday announced it will hear a Wisconsin gerrymandering case alleging the Republican-controlled legislature drew congressional disticts in a way that illegally discriminates against Democratic candidates and voters.
"This is a historic opportunity to address one of the biggest problems facing our electoral system."
--Wendy Weiser, director of the Brennan Center for Justice's Democracy Program
The plaintiffs in the case--a dozen Wisconsin residents--argue "Republican legislative leaders authorized a secretive and exclusionary mapmaking process aimed at securing for their party a large advantage that would persist no matter what happened in future elections."
Recent high-profile gerrymandering cases have focused primarily on the racial impact of redistricting. In May, the Supreme Court deemed North Carolina's map unconstitutional on the grounds that district lines were drawn with the intention of "reducing the voting power of minorities," as Mother Jones put it.
Currently, however, there are several cases--in Pennsylvania and Maryland, for instance--in which partisan redistricting is the center of attention.
Given the impact gerrymandering has had on recent elections, the Wisconsin case is being hailed as potentially "revolutionary," one that could have "massive implications for redistricting and political power in America."
Last November, a panel of federal judges ruled 2-1 that Wisconsin Republicans in 2011 designed the congressional map to "make it more difficult for Democrats, compared to Republicans, to translate their votes into seats." Given the Supreme Court's decision to take on the case, the judges' ruling could reverberate nationally.
"Both parties draw congressional and legislative districts to their own advantage," the Washington Post's Robert Barnes notes. "But Republicans have more to lose because they control so many more state legislatures."
Voter advocacy groups, which have long denounced GOP-drawn congressional districts as discriminatory and blatantly undemocratic, were quick to celebrate the Supreme Court's move.
"For too long, the important task of redistricting has resembled a back-alley brawl: no rules, no referees, and no holds barred," Dan Vicuna, the national redistricting manager for Common Cause, said in a statement. "Technology has made it easier than ever for self-interested legislators to manipulate districts for political advantage, so it is essential that courts step in to protect voters' fundamental constitutional rights."
Karen Hobert Flynn, president of Common Cause, added that gerrymandering "drive[s] too many Americans from our democratic process because citizens feel their votes don't count and sadly in states like Wisconsin and North Carolina today many of those citizens are absolutely right."
"Politicians should not be choosing their voters, voters should be choosing their politicians," she concluded.
Wendy Weiser, director of the Brennan Center for Justice's Democracy Program, also applauded the Supreme Court's announcement on Monday, calling it "a historic opportunity to address one of the biggest problems facing our electoral system."
"Gerrymandering has become so aggressive, extreme, and effective that there is an urgent need for the Supreme Court to finally step in and set boundaries," she said.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.