Redistricting

  • July 16, 2015
    Guest Post

    by Alan B. Morrison, Lerner Family Associate Dean for Public Interest & Public Service, George Washington University Law School

    *This post originally appeared on The Huffington Post.

    When most people propose changes in our electoral system, they generally do so in order to achieve a political end, not because the change conforms to a platonic ideal of what elections should be like. So it is with the plaintiffs in Evenwel v. Abbott, No. 14-940, which the Supreme Court will hear this fall. Their claim is that, when states draw their legislative districts, the Equal Protection Clause requires that they use the numbers of voters, instead of the number of people, as the basis for allocating seats within the states.

    The Supreme Court has ended the most blatant forms of gerrymandering and required legislative districts at both the state and federal level to be equal in composition within each state. The Court's rulings have been labeled "one person, one-vote," and the general assumption has been that, in dividing up each house by districts, the denominator has been the total population of the state.

    Evenwel challenges that assumption and argues that, because the goal of one person, one vote is to have each person's vote count the same as every other person's, the denominator should be total voters and not total population. If this were the law, the main groups that would no longer be counted are children, illegal immigrants, those not registered to vote, and felons who are precluded from voting. Until the actual lines are drawn for all the districts in a state, the results are not certain. But we do know that the backer of this lawsuit (Edward Blum) also supports Fisher v. University of Texas, which seeks the elimination of affirmative action in university admission. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that he believes that the change would have an adverse impact on minorities and their Democratic supporters, or at least it has that potential in some states, including Texas where the case was brought.

  • June 30, 2015
    Guest Post

    by Sean J. Young, Staff Attorney, ACLU Voting Rights Project

    Yesterday, the United States Supreme Court issued a 5-4 decision in Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, which preserved a vital weapon against partisan gerrymandering, a practice which artificially keeps the dominant political party in power regardless of popular will. The Court held that the Elections Clause of the Constitution, as well as a federal statute (2 U.S.C. § 2a(c)), permit the people of Arizona to use the initiative process to take the congressional redistricting process largely out of the hands of state legislators (those who benefit directly from the redistricting process), and to entrust that important process to an independent body. 

    As has been widely reported, the congressional redistricting process in many places has devolved into an anti-democratic procedure where politicians essentially decide who they want their voters to be. Using demographic models and projections of voting patterns calculated down to the neighborhood-level, districts can be drawn in such a way (often into odd-looking shapes) so as to virtually guarantee an electoral outcome. Both parties are guilty of this. Thus, for instance, in 2012, in states where Democrats controlled the process, their candidates won about 56 percent of the vote and 71 percent of the seats. In states where Republicans controlled the process, their candidates won roughly 53 percent of the vote but 72 percent of the seats.  As one politician has put it, “We are in the business of rigging elections.”

    Though courts have long recognized the anti-democratic nature of partisan gerrymandering, they have thus far been reluctant or unable to stop it. So in states like Arizona and California, the people themselves have taken action. Voter-passed initiatives in both states have put redistricting into the hands of independent commissions, which are required to adhere to neutral redistricting principles such as ensuring compactness and contiguity. Though imperfect, independent commissions have been an important weapon in the fight against partisan gerrymandering.

  • June 8, 2015

    by Caroline Cox

    Jerry Markon reports for The Washington Post that the White House has stopped work on its immigration program in response to numerous legal setbacks this year.

    At SalonHeather Digby Parton writes about the plot against the Affordable Care Act and the dire circumstances that would arise should the Court rule against the healthcare law. 

    Sarah Kliff of Vox takes a critical look at the GOP's five plans to fix the Affordable Care Act should the Supreme Court strikes down the law.

    At SlateMichael J. Socolow explains how television stations are the major winners of the Citizens United ruling. 

    Kenneth Jost considers at ‚ÄčJost on Justice Texas's challenge to the "one-person, one-vote" rule that the Supreme Court granted cert to late last month.

     

     

  • November 14, 2014

    by Caroline Cox

    In The Washington Post, E.J. Dionne Jr. considers whether the latest Supreme Court challenge to the Affordable Care Act, King v. Burwell, will force Justice Scalia to separate from his principles.

    John Harwood of CNBC asserts that “the justices have placed themselves in a political vise grip” by accepting to hear the legal challenge to Obamacare.

    At SCOTUSblog, Abbe R. Gluck also examines King v. Burwell and argues the case “is about the proper way to engage in textual interpretation.”

    In other Supreme Court news, Dahlia Lithwick asserts in The New Republic that there is not enough diversity of experience among the Supreme Court justices.

    At Hamilton and Griffin on Rights, Janai Nelson looks at the important role of race in the Alabama redistricting cases. The ACS panel discussion of the cases from earlier this week can be found here

  • November 13, 2014

    by Caroline Cox

    Linda Greenhouse asserts in The New York Times that the Supreme Court’s decision to review the challenge to the Affordable Care Act in King v. Burwell is “a naked power grab by conservative justices.”

    Richard L. Hasen writes in the Los Angeles Times that Chief Justice John Roberts may not protect the Affordable Care Act in the new case before the Supreme Court.

    In the New Republic, Michael Lewis argues that growing wealth inequality is bad for the poor and wealthy alike.

    At the blog for the Brennan Center for Justice, Avram Billig examines the campaign finance victories of the recent election.

    Nina Totenberg at NPR examines the oral argument for the Alabama redistricting cases that took place on Wednesday at the Supreme Court.