Political Gerrymandering
The Supreme Court will hear a case involving political gerrymandering in Wisconsin in the fall of 2017. Racial gerrymandering, the practice of drawing congressional lines along racially concentrated areas, has been ruled unconstitutional in some cases.
Political gerrymandering, or the drawing of congressional districts in order to mute the impact of voters for the party out of power, has not been ruled on. The problem the judiciary has with throwing out non-racial gerrymandering is that there is no "workable standard for deciding when partisan line-drawing crossed a constitutional line." (Brent Kendall, 6/20/17 Wall St. Journal)
Republicans gained complete control of the Wisconsin government in 2010 - a re-districting year. The redrawn map helped convert very close state contests into wins for the Republican party. In 2012, Republicans won 48.6% of the statewide vote, but gained 60 of the state Assembly's 99 seats. In 2014, 52% of the vote yielded 63 seats. (Adam Liptak, 6/20/17 New York Times)
Wisconsin is not alone in this practice. A lawsuit is pending in Pennsylvania against the Republican Party. Pennsylvania has the infamous "Goofy kicking Donald Duck" district, which traverses five counties, and at one point is so narrow that it only encompasses the width of a restaurant.
Democrats also use political gerrymandering to advance their party. Maryland is being sued, accused of depriving voters of their first amendment rights.
Any hope of finding gerrymandering unconstitutional may hinge on the concept of an an "efficiency gap" - a measure of votes considered wasted in districts designed not to be close. Two states where this gap occurs are Ohio and Massachusetts.
Some states are getting rid of political gerrymandering by using independent commissions to draw congressional maps. Most states will not voluntarily give up biased districting until the judiciary tells them they must.
No comments:
Post a Comment