The U.S. Supreme Court wrapped up its session and\nexamined one of the most problematic issues facing American democracy: how best to draw political boundaries to ensure\nfairness and equality. The question\nfacing the justices was what role should federal courts play in correcting\novertly partisan gerrymandering.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Gerrymandering is a long-time practice in the United\nStates in which political parties rig the boundaries of elected officials to\nmaximize their own partisan advantages. \nThe term originates from redistricting decisions made in Massachusetts\nduring the early 1800s. In 1812,\nMassachusetts adopted new constitutionally-mandated electoral district\nboundaries. The Republican-controlled legislature had created district\nboundaries designed to enhance their party’s control over state and national\noffices, leading to some oddly shaped legislative districts. Then-Governor Elbridge Gerry signed the\nlegislation. The shape of one of the state senate districts in Essex County was\ncompared to a salamander by a local Federalist newspaper in a political\ncartoon, calling it a “Gerry-mander\u201d. \nEver since, the creation of such districts has been called \u201cgerrymandering.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Reformers have decried this practice for decades. In effect, control by state legislatures and\ngovernors of the redistricting process allowed elected officials to choose\ntheir voters, instead of the other way around. \nAs a result, electoral challenges became much more difficult, voters\nwere denied real competition for office, and the nation became more polarized.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In the past, the Supreme Court has weighed in on\nintolerable redistricting practices. The\nCourt had ruled against gerrymandering that allowed racial discrimination. The Court had ruled that district must be\nroughly the same population size in order to ensure \u201cone person, one vote.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Yet, last week the Court decided that it will not rule on\nredistricting that is obviously and overtly partisan. The decision focused on two cases, one in North\nCarolina and the other in Maryland. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
In both cases, the dominate political party dramatically\nchanged district lines to their own political advantage. In particular, last week\u2019s 5-4 ruling means\nthat North Carolina\u2019s current Republican-drawn map delineating its 13\nCongressional districts \u2014 a map that critics have said is among the country\u2019s\nmost egregious examples of hyper-partisanship \u2014 will stand. The decision will\nlikely embolden lawmakers around the country to craft seats for their\nrespective parties with the aid of increasingly sophisticated computer mapping\ntools.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Chief Justice Roberts, writing for the majority, argued\nthat the drafters of the Constitution understood that politics would play a\nrole in drawing election districts when they gave the task to state\nlegislatures. Judges, the chief justice said, are not entitled to second-guess\nlawmakers\u2019 judgments.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Chief Justice Roberts did not say the current system of\ndrawing districts is desirable as a matter of policy. \u201cExcessive partisanship\nin districting leads to results that reasonably seem unjust,\u201d he wrote. But the federal courts simply cannot\nintervene.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
As a result of their decision, dominant political parties\ncan eviscerate electoral competition in states. \nThis is not, however, the first time that the Court has acted to protect\nthe power of a dominant class.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the\nCourt held that the free speech clause of the First Amendment prohibits the\ngovernment from restricting independent expenditures for political\ncommunications by corporations, including nonprofit corporations, labor unions,\nand other associations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The ruling effectively freed corporations to spend money\non electioneering communications and to directly advocate for the election or\ndefeat of candidates. In his dissenting opinion, Associate Justice John Paul\nStevens argued that the Court’s ruling represented “a rejection of the\ncommon sense of the American people, who have recognized a need to prevent\ncorporations from undermining self-government.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In both cases, the Court ruled in favor of those who\ndominate elections in America \u2013 the two political parties and the wealthy and\norganized that provide the bulk of campaign spending. In both cases, the public is denied meaningful\nelectoral debates and the opportunities to hear different ideas. Both cases weaken representative\ndemocracy. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
There is a lesson to be learned: don\u2019t expect the Supreme\nCourt to save the day. Ultimately it is\nup to us, the voters, to get engaged and fight for the changes that strengthen\nour democracy.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The U.S. Supreme Court wrapped up its session and examined one of the most problematic issues facing American democracy: how best to draw political boundaries to ensure fairness and equality. The question facing the justices was what role should federal courts play in correcting overtly partisan gerrymandering. Gerrymandering is a long-time practice in the United […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2265","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nypirg.org\/capitolperspective\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2265","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nypirg.org\/capitolperspective\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nypirg.org\/capitolperspective\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nypirg.org\/capitolperspective\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nypirg.org\/capitolperspective\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2265"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.nypirg.org\/capitolperspective\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2265\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2266,"href":"https:\/\/www.nypirg.org\/capitolperspective\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2265\/revisions\/2266"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nypirg.org\/capitolperspective\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2265"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nypirg.org\/capitolperspective\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2265"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nypirg.org\/capitolperspective\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2265"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}