An excellent, really helpful report from Allegra. Thanks, keep up the great work.
Prediction ā because the North Carolina case involves both the most extreme gerrymander and, importantly, an overt statement of intent, the Supreme Court will take the āhigh groundā and strike it down. But they will set the standard so high, requiring an explicit statement of intention by the legislature itself, that this will be a one-off, non-precedential decision.
So the lesson for the next round of cases will be for the legislature not to say anything but just to do it. And, to be very safe, donāt be a hog and take the most extreme map, but the next to the most extreme one.
Trump has made gerrymandering look quaint.
I think that is as reasonable guess, but there is one problem with that approach imo; the unintended consequences of such a ruling on future elections. There are a few factors that weigh on gerrymandering legislatures: 1) Are they elected in presidential or off-presidential years 2) What is the popularity of the incumbent president 3) Macro economic factors that drive all elections as referenda on the party in power 4) Spending differentials from the partiesā¦ 5) Demographics (and changes therein) In 2010 the GOP drew an inside straight on 1-4. In 2020 it could be argued the reverse is true for 1-3 in 2020 with 4 and 5 being a wash. If SCOTUS allows for a free-for-all (in practice) ruling, than a number of states from PA to WI, should they flip, gerrymander the **** out of their states and will benefit the Dems. It will be unfair but hey, a conservative court said it was ok! Also, what is to stop CA from removing their non-partisan election commission and taking a shot at Devin Nunes by creating a snake district to SF or LA? The point is that not only is this a major issue for democracy (something that the GOP barely pays lip service to) but also something that could wipe out any chance they have at the house for the next decade (something they do care about).
"thatās unconstitutional many times over,ā Wolf said.
How charmingly naive of him to think that would matter.
I think thereās a question for the supporters of gerrymandering that deserves to be asked here, but Iām not sure the right way to phrase it. In NC, as Allegra states, Democrats won over 50% of the vote, but Republicans won 10 of 13 congressional seats. If supports are ok with that, then by extension, wouldnāt they āhave toā be ok with winning this court case 5-4, but not actually being able to continue on with what that 5-4 majority states?
Have to is in quotes because hypocrisy isnāt really a thing anyone concerns themselves with, so I get that the real answer is people will just supporting what is most self serving, but in the mythical world where leaders actually adhere to principles, then winning 5-4 or 6-3 but not actually getting what the majority votes for should be, in theory, ok with them.
Given the current composition of the court the key may be how āabstract,ā in the Lee Atwater sense, the reich-wing majority can craft the opinion; i.e., if a ruling can be phrased in a manner discriminating against racial/ethnic minorities, particularly those favoring a particular political party, but not specifically against a party proper then theyāll go for it.
At this point in our historyāwith the republic breaking down and climate change threatening to destroy our civilizationāthe question of gerrymandering needs to looked at from a macro political perspective. To put it simply, the GOP is an existential threat to our country and to the planet. It is utterly unfit for power. Democrats need to be in control of government for a period of eight years or more, and to act very effectively in a way that obliterates the GOP, to avert total disaster. Itās that simple. Itās make or break.
With the exception of a very few years, Democrats controlled the House between 1945 and 1995. The country prospered. We need that over the next twenty years. That cannot happen so long as a Democratic majority is contingent on a massive midterm blue wave. Either the GOP must be stopped from gerrymandering by the SC, or Dems have to gerrymander vigorously at every opportunity. The idealistic approachāset a good example, and wait for the GOP to reform itselfāis simply too risky. Itās also the approach that is least likely to force the Republican Supreme Court to intervene.
The other thing to bear in mind, in relation to the House, is that Republicans have in effect stolen the Supreme Court against the popular will for the next 20 years. That is itself the product of the built-in gerrymander the GOP enjoys in the Senate and the electoral college. So we have a constitutional emergency on our hands. Idealistic unilateral disarmament on gerrymandering is very dangerous course to take.
In a sense, it is silly that we need these cases with such incontrovertible evidence of the intent of gerrymanders. Everyone knows that every gerrymander overseen by partisan officials is partisan. In a saner world, we would have courts that recognize this obvious fact and declare all gerrymanders by partisan officials unconstitutional. Every state should have independent redistricting authorities.
In 1937 Social Security was on the chopping block in Helvering vs. Davis. The Supreme Court was also under a cloud as harboring a radically conservative anti-New Deal majority that was totally OK with letting the Great Depression just carry on without government intervention. FDRs plan to expand the number of justices - called 'Court Packing by his opponents - was in the works. Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes politicked the court to assure the approval of Social Security and other New Deal initiatives to save the institutional and reputational legitimacy of the Supreme Court. So-called court-packing was defeated as unpopular and unnecessary. Later FDR appointees arrived in the next several years to secure the New Deal. The gerrymander cases represent exactly the Helvering vs. Davis level of threat to the Supreme Court. The matter is in your hands Chief Justice Roberts.
With the GOP share of whites beginning to decline as suburbs move towards the Dems and the population in the rural areas decreases, partisan gerrymandering is more helpful to them than racial gerrymandering. Analytically, I think thereās reason to be optimistic. Politically, however, I am less so because absent partisan gerrymandering, I donāt think the GOP could maintain control of NC, WI, OH, TX or GA. I have no clear idea where this goes, but Iāll note that the court did not interfere in the PA partisan gerrymander case and that did have a dramatic effect on the makeup of the Congressional delegation. That would indicate that this court believes State courts have some real say or priority on such matters. It might be easier for them to punt to state courts on this.
Iām impressed with the insights of those commenting above. To this non-lawyer, these pollyannish forecasts are good to hear, but Iāll believe 'em when i see 'em.
The now firmly conservative Court likely took the cases not to announce that such activities violate the Constitution, but to reverse the lower courts that said they do. Down the road, the Court might do much more damage, including by preventing states from using independent commissions to draw congressional districts.
Democrats need to be prepared to extreme gerrymander the states that they control (such as this attempt in NJ) should the Supreme Court strike down independent commissions or other rollbacks of state-level anti-gerrymandering laws. For the foreseeable future, I think we should hope for the best but expect the worst from this Court.
I would be pleasantly surprised. Itās quite possible Roberts thinks his team is better at playing dirty than the democrats. And Gorsuch and Kavanaugh would vote to OK the NC case while rolling back Maryland without taking a breath between.
Excellent report. Our republic depends on the faith of its citizens. Gerrymandering erodes that faith. Some things really do respond to a common sense analysis. Gerrymandering is one of those things.
Since Bush V Gore, it has been very rare for the court to make any ruling that sides with Democrats. The ACA was a rare exception.
However, with changing demographics, it is likely that Democrats will be in control of the majority of redistricting. Suddenly, a fair process would help keep the GOP fro being wiped out, so we may get one. But in a country where, in the midterms, Dems got 9% more votes, Iād be really happy with non-partisan commissions everywhere,
Sorry folks, but what we say is unconstitutional isnāt until the SC says it is. Once again, Roberts will vote with the minority opposing this gerrymandering so Cokie Roberts can say āitās a closely divided court,ā but the plaintiffs will still lose 5-4.
Impeach Kavanaugh! Impeach Gorsuch!
But legislators are supposed to choose their constituents, not constituents choose their legislators.
I would not care to count on the āconscienceā of any Trumpublican, especially those on SCOTUS. They have been working on surgical removal of decency from their psyches for a while now.