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
"Gerrymandering has no value in our democracy," said Kristen Clarke, president of the Lawyers' Committee on Civil and Human Rights. (Photo: Janai Nelson/Twitter)
#FairMaps: Pro-Democracy Rally as Supreme Court Hears 'Most Significant' Voting Rights Case in Decades
"Make no mistake about it: Extreme partisan gerrymandering is corruption. It's a cancer on democracy. End it now!"
Oct 03, 2017
Wielding signs that read "hands off our districts" and "you can pick your nose, but you can't pick your voters," hundreds of civil rights advocates, lawyers, and lawmakers rallied in the nation's capital Tuesday as the Supreme Court heard arguments in a landmark redistricting case that poses "the most serious challenge to gerrymandering in modern times."
| #FairMaps Tweets |
The case under consideration--Gill v. Whitford--is the result of a lawsuit filed by Wisconsin voters and the Campaign Legal Center in 2015 alleging that Republican-drawn state district lines violated the rights of Democratic voters. In 2016, a federal court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, arguing that the GOP's district maps amounted to "an aggressive partisan gerrymander" and ordered the lines redrawn.
Wisconsin repealed this verdict, and in May the Supreme Court temporarily blocked the lower court ruling from going into effect. A month later, the court announced it would hear the case.
The final outcome of Whitford, expected by June of next year, could either positively transform the American political system or further erode voting rights and make gerrymandering even worse. Either way, the consequences will be enormous, argues Ari Berman of Mother Jones.
"A ruling against Wisconsin would be one of the most significant victories for voting rights in decades, opening the door to many more challenges to gerrymandering across the country, in both red and blue states where maps were clearly drawn for a political advantage," Berman notes. "A ruling for Wisconsin, alternatively, would virtually guarantee many more partisan gerrymanders in the future. Republicans would claim they are denying representation to Democratic voters for partisan, not racial, reasons."
Judging by the number of people gathered outside the court building on Tuesday--many of whom arrived as early as 3:00am, sleeping bags in hand--these implications have not been lost on American voters, who polls indicate overwhelmingly support court action to end extreme partisan gerrymandering.
"We have the chance, with this case, to put power back into the hands of the people whose rights are under attack."
--Kristen Clarke, Lawyers' Committee on Civil and Human Rights
"The crowd at SCOTUS today for Gill v. Whitford is the biggest I've ever seen for a redistricting case," observed Michael Li, counsel for the Brennan Center's Democracy Program. "I think it really speaks to frustration many Americans feel about politics today."
Kristen Clark, president of the Lawyers' Committee on Civil and Human Rights, concluded in a speech in front of the Supreme Court building on Tuesday that "gerrymandering has no value in our democracy."
"We have the chance, with this case, to put power back into the hands of the people whose rights are under attack," Clarke said.
Walter Shaub, former head of the Office of Government Ethics, echoed this sentiment, concluding, "Make no mistake about it: Extreme partisan gerrymandering is corruption. It's a cancer on democracy. End it now!"
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, The U.S. is on a fast track to authoritarianism like nothing I've ever seen. Meanwhile, corporate news outlets are utterly capitulating to Trump, twisting their coverage to avoid drawing his ire while lining up to stuff cash in his pockets. That's why I believe that Common Dreams is doing the best and most consequential reporting that we've ever done. Our small but mighty team is a progressive reporting powerhouse, covering the news every day that the corporate media never will. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. And to ignite change for the common good. Now here's the key piece that I want all our readers to understand: None of this would be possible without your financial support. That's not just some fundraising cliche. It's the absolute and literal truth. 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. Will you donate now to help power the nonprofit, independent reporting of Common Dreams? Thank you for being a vital member of our community. Together, we can keep independent journalism alive when it’s needed most. - Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Wielding signs that read "hands off our districts" and "you can pick your nose, but you can't pick your voters," hundreds of civil rights advocates, lawyers, and lawmakers rallied in the nation's capital Tuesday as the Supreme Court heard arguments in a landmark redistricting case that poses "the most serious challenge to gerrymandering in modern times."
| #FairMaps Tweets |
The case under consideration--Gill v. Whitford--is the result of a lawsuit filed by Wisconsin voters and the Campaign Legal Center in 2015 alleging that Republican-drawn state district lines violated the rights of Democratic voters. In 2016, a federal court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, arguing that the GOP's district maps amounted to "an aggressive partisan gerrymander" and ordered the lines redrawn.
Wisconsin repealed this verdict, and in May the Supreme Court temporarily blocked the lower court ruling from going into effect. A month later, the court announced it would hear the case.
The final outcome of Whitford, expected by June of next year, could either positively transform the American political system or further erode voting rights and make gerrymandering even worse. Either way, the consequences will be enormous, argues Ari Berman of Mother Jones.
"A ruling against Wisconsin would be one of the most significant victories for voting rights in decades, opening the door to many more challenges to gerrymandering across the country, in both red and blue states where maps were clearly drawn for a political advantage," Berman notes. "A ruling for Wisconsin, alternatively, would virtually guarantee many more partisan gerrymanders in the future. Republicans would claim they are denying representation to Democratic voters for partisan, not racial, reasons."
Judging by the number of people gathered outside the court building on Tuesday--many of whom arrived as early as 3:00am, sleeping bags in hand--these implications have not been lost on American voters, who polls indicate overwhelmingly support court action to end extreme partisan gerrymandering.
"We have the chance, with this case, to put power back into the hands of the people whose rights are under attack."
--Kristen Clarke, Lawyers' Committee on Civil and Human Rights
"The crowd at SCOTUS today for Gill v. Whitford is the biggest I've ever seen for a redistricting case," observed Michael Li, counsel for the Brennan Center's Democracy Program. "I think it really speaks to frustration many Americans feel about politics today."
Kristen Clark, president of the Lawyers' Committee on Civil and Human Rights, concluded in a speech in front of the Supreme Court building on Tuesday that "gerrymandering has no value in our democracy."
"We have the chance, with this case, to put power back into the hands of the people whose rights are under attack," Clarke said.
Walter Shaub, former head of the Office of Government Ethics, echoed this sentiment, concluding, "Make no mistake about it: Extreme partisan gerrymandering is corruption. It's a cancer on democracy. End it now!"
Wielding signs that read "hands off our districts" and "you can pick your nose, but you can't pick your voters," hundreds of civil rights advocates, lawyers, and lawmakers rallied in the nation's capital Tuesday as the Supreme Court heard arguments in a landmark redistricting case that poses "the most serious challenge to gerrymandering in modern times."
| #FairMaps Tweets |
The case under consideration--Gill v. Whitford--is the result of a lawsuit filed by Wisconsin voters and the Campaign Legal Center in 2015 alleging that Republican-drawn state district lines violated the rights of Democratic voters. In 2016, a federal court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, arguing that the GOP's district maps amounted to "an aggressive partisan gerrymander" and ordered the lines redrawn.
Wisconsin repealed this verdict, and in May the Supreme Court temporarily blocked the lower court ruling from going into effect. A month later, the court announced it would hear the case.
The final outcome of Whitford, expected by June of next year, could either positively transform the American political system or further erode voting rights and make gerrymandering even worse. Either way, the consequences will be enormous, argues Ari Berman of Mother Jones.
"A ruling against Wisconsin would be one of the most significant victories for voting rights in decades, opening the door to many more challenges to gerrymandering across the country, in both red and blue states where maps were clearly drawn for a political advantage," Berman notes. "A ruling for Wisconsin, alternatively, would virtually guarantee many more partisan gerrymanders in the future. Republicans would claim they are denying representation to Democratic voters for partisan, not racial, reasons."
Judging by the number of people gathered outside the court building on Tuesday--many of whom arrived as early as 3:00am, sleeping bags in hand--these implications have not been lost on American voters, who polls indicate overwhelmingly support court action to end extreme partisan gerrymandering.
"We have the chance, with this case, to put power back into the hands of the people whose rights are under attack."
--Kristen Clarke, Lawyers' Committee on Civil and Human Rights
"The crowd at SCOTUS today for Gill v. Whitford is the biggest I've ever seen for a redistricting case," observed Michael Li, counsel for the Brennan Center's Democracy Program. "I think it really speaks to frustration many Americans feel about politics today."
Kristen Clark, president of the Lawyers' Committee on Civil and Human Rights, concluded in a speech in front of the Supreme Court building on Tuesday that "gerrymandering has no value in our democracy."
"We have the chance, with this case, to put power back into the hands of the people whose rights are under attack," Clarke said.
Walter Shaub, former head of the Office of Government Ethics, echoed this sentiment, concluding, "Make no mistake about it: Extreme partisan gerrymandering is corruption. It's a cancer on democracy. End it now!"
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.