By barring the federal courts' oversight of partisan gerrymandering, the Supreme Court has made it harder to fight for fair maps. (Image: Circle Creative Studio)
Supreme Court Refuses to Stop Partisan Gerrymandering
With the Supreme Court shirking its responsibility, other strategies for getting fair maps are more important than ever
The Supreme Court has brought an unfortunate end to the years-long fight to end extreme partisan gerrymandering. On Thursday, the court ruled that federal courts have no role to play in disputes over maps that were drawn on a purely partisan basis.
The ruling is a setback for democracy, undoing a strong, recent string of victories by voters in trial courts around the nation. By refusing to let the federal judiciary tackle this critical issue, the court has set the stage for more attempts at extreme gerrymandering and raised the importance of enacting other reforms. Chief among them is H.R. 1, which was passed by the House in March but is being blocked in the Senate. It would ban partisan gerrymandering and require independent commissions to draw congressional lines in every state.
In the Supreme Court's 5-4 opinion in the cases out of North Carolina and Maryland, Chief Justice John Roberts explained that the federal courts cannot hear partisan gerrymandering cases because there are no "discernable and manageable standards" with which to identify when these gerrymanders are unconstitutional.
Justice Elena Kagan's dissent vehemently counters this notion. Opining that the majority's "complacency has no cause," Kagan points to the many ways that courts can tackle the issue. The majority dismissed these options, determining that the issue presents "political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts."
By barring the federal courts' oversight of partisan gerrymandering, the Supreme Court has made it harder to fight for fair maps. Voters in extremely gerrymandered states like North Carolina, Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, and Maryland will once again be forced to use unconstitutional maps for their upcoming elections. The longer-term and even graver threat is extreme partisan gerrymandering running rampant when the next round of redistricting starts in 2021.
Although federal litigation is no longer a viable route toward fair maps, other opportunities exist. State courts might see an uptick in gerrymandering cases. In 2018, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court struck down an extreme partisan gerrymander as a violation of its state constitution.
Meanwhile, citizens and state lawmakers can join forces to pass legislative reforms ahead of the next round of redistricting. Public support for these reforms is strong. In 2018, Democrats and Republicans alike voted to pass redistricting reforms in five states. And this year, the Virginia and New Hampshire legislatures passed bills to reform their own map-drawing processes. More states should follow suit in 2020, with time remaining for many to add public participation, transparency, and improved map-making criteria to their redistricting processes.
We are at a crossroads
This country and this world are at a monumental crossroads. In a few short weeks, US voters will have an opportunity to beat back the forces of fascism and confront the billionaires who are rigging the economy, our media system, and our democracy, making it increasingly impossible for ordinary people to get by. We’re not just talking about the election. We’re talking about what must be done once these fascist elements are vanquished from power. We need a bolder set of solutions than what either major party has so far been willing to offer and a working-class movement ready to fight like hell for it. Trump didn't emerge from nowhere. The conditions that fueled MAGA authoritarianism were created by decades of radical neoliberal economic policies and a corrupt political system dominated by corporate interests. They slashed taxes on the super-rich, promising that the benefits would trickle down. They said giveaways to the corporate titans would make life more affordable for the rest of us. It was all bullshit. And when a bitter, betrayed populace searches for someone to blame, right-wing demagogues have little trouble finding scapegoats. People know when they're being lied to, but you won't hear any of this from the corporate media. Only independent journalism—powered and funded by people who believe in building a better world—can deliver truly trustworthy daily news. Our Fall Campaign is underway, and we need your help. To power our newsroom through the rest of the year, we need to raise $125,000 by midnight on October 31. So if you share our vision, please contribute whatever you can to sustain our work. |
The Supreme Court has brought an unfortunate end to the years-long fight to end extreme partisan gerrymandering. On Thursday, the court ruled that federal courts have no role to play in disputes over maps that were drawn on a purely partisan basis.
The ruling is a setback for democracy, undoing a strong, recent string of victories by voters in trial courts around the nation. By refusing to let the federal judiciary tackle this critical issue, the court has set the stage for more attempts at extreme gerrymandering and raised the importance of enacting other reforms. Chief among them is H.R. 1, which was passed by the House in March but is being blocked in the Senate. It would ban partisan gerrymandering and require independent commissions to draw congressional lines in every state.
In the Supreme Court's 5-4 opinion in the cases out of North Carolina and Maryland, Chief Justice John Roberts explained that the federal courts cannot hear partisan gerrymandering cases because there are no "discernable and manageable standards" with which to identify when these gerrymanders are unconstitutional.
Justice Elena Kagan's dissent vehemently counters this notion. Opining that the majority's "complacency has no cause," Kagan points to the many ways that courts can tackle the issue. The majority dismissed these options, determining that the issue presents "political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts."
By barring the federal courts' oversight of partisan gerrymandering, the Supreme Court has made it harder to fight for fair maps. Voters in extremely gerrymandered states like North Carolina, Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, and Maryland will once again be forced to use unconstitutional maps for their upcoming elections. The longer-term and even graver threat is extreme partisan gerrymandering running rampant when the next round of redistricting starts in 2021.
Although federal litigation is no longer a viable route toward fair maps, other opportunities exist. State courts might see an uptick in gerrymandering cases. In 2018, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court struck down an extreme partisan gerrymander as a violation of its state constitution.
Meanwhile, citizens and state lawmakers can join forces to pass legislative reforms ahead of the next round of redistricting. Public support for these reforms is strong. In 2018, Democrats and Republicans alike voted to pass redistricting reforms in five states. And this year, the Virginia and New Hampshire legislatures passed bills to reform their own map-drawing processes. More states should follow suit in 2020, with time remaining for many to add public participation, transparency, and improved map-making criteria to their redistricting processes.
The Supreme Court has brought an unfortunate end to the years-long fight to end extreme partisan gerrymandering. On Thursday, the court ruled that federal courts have no role to play in disputes over maps that were drawn on a purely partisan basis.
The ruling is a setback for democracy, undoing a strong, recent string of victories by voters in trial courts around the nation. By refusing to let the federal judiciary tackle this critical issue, the court has set the stage for more attempts at extreme gerrymandering and raised the importance of enacting other reforms. Chief among them is H.R. 1, which was passed by the House in March but is being blocked in the Senate. It would ban partisan gerrymandering and require independent commissions to draw congressional lines in every state.
In the Supreme Court's 5-4 opinion in the cases out of North Carolina and Maryland, Chief Justice John Roberts explained that the federal courts cannot hear partisan gerrymandering cases because there are no "discernable and manageable standards" with which to identify when these gerrymanders are unconstitutional.
Justice Elena Kagan's dissent vehemently counters this notion. Opining that the majority's "complacency has no cause," Kagan points to the many ways that courts can tackle the issue. The majority dismissed these options, determining that the issue presents "political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts."
By barring the federal courts' oversight of partisan gerrymandering, the Supreme Court has made it harder to fight for fair maps. Voters in extremely gerrymandered states like North Carolina, Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, and Maryland will once again be forced to use unconstitutional maps for their upcoming elections. The longer-term and even graver threat is extreme partisan gerrymandering running rampant when the next round of redistricting starts in 2021.
Although federal litigation is no longer a viable route toward fair maps, other opportunities exist. State courts might see an uptick in gerrymandering cases. In 2018, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court struck down an extreme partisan gerrymander as a violation of its state constitution.
Meanwhile, citizens and state lawmakers can join forces to pass legislative reforms ahead of the next round of redistricting. Public support for these reforms is strong. In 2018, Democrats and Republicans alike voted to pass redistricting reforms in five states. And this year, the Virginia and New Hampshire legislatures passed bills to reform their own map-drawing processes. More states should follow suit in 2020, with time remaining for many to add public participation, transparency, and improved map-making criteria to their redistricting processes.