Supreme Court allows gerrymandering in North Carolina, Maryland, setting back reform efforts
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
une 27, 2019, 10:18 AM EDT / Updated June 27, 2019, 10:25 AM EDT
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Thursday refused to find that political partisanship was so extreme in drawing the maps for congressional districts in two states that it violated the Constitution. The result was a setback for advocates of political reform.
In separate votes, the court rejected claims that partisan politics played too great a role in the way congressional districts were designed in North Carolina to the benefit of Republicans and in Maryland to the advantage of Democrats.
Dissenting justices, all on the court's liberal wing, said the high court was abdicating its responsibility to settle a deeply divisive constitutional issue. "For the first time ever, this Court refuses to remedy a constitutional violation because it thinks the task beyond judicial capabilities," Justice Elena Kagan wrote in her dissent.
A finding that excessively partisan gerrymandering violated the Constitution could have a profound impact on American politics by making congressional and state legislative elections more competitive.
The Supreme Court has turned away such challenges in the past, concluding that because redistricting is essentially a political act, it would be impossible to determine when partisan gerrymandering crossed a constitutional line. The court seemed on the verge of finding that point two years ago. But the retirement of Justice Anthony Kennedy, who signaled that he was receptive to the claims, dimmed the hopes of reform advocates.
Advocates of political change considered the case from North Carolina to be so extreme that the court could not avoid striking down the congressional redistricting plan. After the 2010 census, the state Legislature drew a map that was intended to maintain the partisan breakdown of its congressional delegation — 10 Republicans and three Democrats.
A Republican state legislator involved in the process, Rep. David Lewis, said, "I think electing Republicans is better than electing Democrats," adding that he drew the map "to help foster what I think is better for the country."
The court also heard a challenge to the redrawing of Maryland's 6th Congressional District in 2011, which allowed Democrats to take over a seat in the U.S. House that Republican Roscoe Bartlett held for two decades. The governor at the time, Martin O'Malley, said the intent was to create a district "where the people would be more likely to elect a Democrat than a Republican."
In past cases, the court found it impossible to formulate a legal test for determining when too much partisanship was at work. The challengers in the North Carolina case contended that the constitutional line is crossed when the political party controlling the process targets the other party's voters by spreading them out among districts where they cannot form a majority, and jamming the remaining ones together to minimize the number of districts they can win.
But Republican legislators in North Carolina said gerrymandering is an issue for the political branches, not for judges.
"The time has come for this court to make clear that the Constitution does not provide courts with the tools or the responsibility to say how much partisan motivation is too much," they said in their court filings.
Wednesday's decisions cast a shadow over lower court rulings that invalidated congressional district maps drawn by Republican-controlled Legislatures in Ohio and Michigan. Michigan's state legislative districts were also struck down. In both cases, the lower courts said the new maps were unconstitutional partisan gerrymanders. The Supreme Court put a hold on both those rulings while it considered the North Carolina and Maryland disputes.
The justices will probably send both of the Midwestern cases back to the lower courts for a reassessment in light of Wednesday's ruling.
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Tags
Who is online
65 visitors
Back to the States
Institutional Unfairness...
On the merits it should have been 9-0, but fairness trumps Constitutional law for some!
I'm with JBB here. This was a cop out. Of all the issues that have to do with elections, this is one that really bothers me. And it is provided for in the Constitution.
Only when it involves race!
Which was more than evident in NC.
Oh well, the more things change, the more they stay the same, it seems.
NO, that case was deemed to not involve race. Thus it is up to the states as to how districts are carved out.
Too bad Eric....
Tough shit Barak...
No tough shit on the constitution.
The court shouldn't be selective how it interprets the constitution and they just did that. You would be screaming bloody murder if they did away with the electoral college, and rightfully so. Gerrymandering is wrong. End of story.
That is your opinion. As long as it dosen't involve race, the states get to set up their own districts. This is not a moral argument it's a legal one and btw another reason the SCOTUS hates a gerrymandering case is that it takes forever to sort them out.
Article 10 U.S. Constitution
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
It’s not selective at all. How states determine districts for representation is for the states to determine per the Constitution.
Too many want the Federal Government in any or all 3 branches to usurp the power of the states in these matters.
It's not OK when anyone does it. Do you have examples of Dems doing it?
Do you have examples of Dems doing it?
The Maryland case that the Supreme court decided today.
Sean,
They are complaining about these ridiculous redistricting.
I can't imagine why they would have a problem when a district looks like this Sean.
Yes, the Democrats gerrymandered that district about as perfectly as any district could be.
This is an absurd argument. The state legislator admitted to partisan bias in his "redistricting" decisions. Congressional districts should be decided by either non partisan panels of appointed historians and political scientists or by a non partisan computer program. Allowing political hacks to decide redistricting is nothing short of ridiculous.
It is partisan bias and that is up to the state of North Carolina to address.
You conveniently leave out this included a case in Maryland for Democrat gerrymandering
“The court also heard a challenge to the redrawing of Maryland's 6th Congressional District in 2011, which allowed Democrats to take over a seat in the U.S. House that Republican Roscoe Bartlett held for two decades. The governor at the time, Martin O'Malley, said the intent was to create a district "where the people would be more likely to elect a Democrat than a Republican."
How states determine districts for representation is for the states to determine per the Constitution.
Too many want the Federal Government in any or all 3 branches to usurp the power of the states in these matters.
I dont think either party should do it. But of course, as the Democrats retake some statehouses and state legislatures that have been in GOP hands they will undoubtedly want to rectify what the Republicans did.
It’s been the political practice nearly our entire history as a country and was started by the Democrats, see 3.3.2
Ack, I didn't see this, I will delete mine.
So some of the justices think it is not their place to get involved?
It is exactly where they should get involved. It is why they are on the court.
They are basically saying that the parties can do whatever they want and they will never rule on it.
Bad president there....
It is a bad precedent. I agree, that's what the court is for - and the dissent stated that very thing.
No matter which party does it, it is wrong. Partisanship should have no place in determining these boundaries.
Of course, there is the issue of whether you could actually find enough impartial, unbiased people to form a panel in the first place ...