What the hell is gerrymandering?
Gerrymandering: the artful manipulation of electoral boundaries to sculpt political outcomes, rendering the democratic process more akin to a rigged game of Tetris than a fair representation of the people's will. Like an evil architect, politicians bend and contort district lines with surgical precision, not to reflect community cohesion or shared interests, but to fortify their own power bases and stifle dissent.
This immoral practice undermines the very essence of democracy, distorting the voice of the populace and entrenching partisan advantage at the expense of fair representation. It's the epitome of political cheating, a brazen assault on the principles of equality and justice, where politicians pick their voters rather than voters picking their representatives. In short, gerrymandering is democracy's disillusionment, a cancer eroding the integrity of our electoral system.
What gives States the right to gerrymander and what can Congress do about it?
The legal precedent for gerrymandering stems from several key judicial decisions and legislative actions.
Early Historical Context
1. The Term's Origin (1812):
- The term "gerrymandering" originated in 1812, named after Massachusetts Governor Elbridge Gerry. His administration enacted a law to redraw district lines to favor the Democratic-Republican Party. This act led to the creation of a district resembling a salamander, hence the portmanteau of "Gerry" and "mander" .
Judicial Precedents
2. Supreme Court Decisions:
- Colegrove v. Green (1946):
- The U.S. Supreme Court initially ruled that federal courts had no jurisdiction over legislative apportionment, deeming it a political question (Colegrove v. Green, 328 U.S. 549). This decision essentially left redistricting practices, including gerrymandering, unchecked by federal courts .
- Baker v. Carr (1962):
- This landmark case overturned the Colegrove decision by ruling that federal courts could indeed hear cases on redistricting, establishing the principle of "one person, one vote" (Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186). This decision opened the door for judicial intervention in apportionment cases, although it did not directly address partisan gerrymandering .
- Reynolds v. Sims (1964):
- Furthering the principles established in Baker v. Carr, Reynolds v. Sims (377 U.S. 533) required that state legislative districts be roughly equal in population, reinforcing the "one person, one vote" doctrine. This case addressed malapportionment but did not eliminate the possibility of partisan gerrymandering .
3. Partisan Gerrymandering Cases:
- Davis v. Bandemer (1986):
- This case marked the first time the Supreme Court recognized partisan gerrymandering as a justiciable issue under the Equal Protection Clause. However, the Court set a very high bar for proving unconstitutional gerrymandering, resulting in few successful challenges (Davis v. Bandemer, 478 U.S. 109) .
- Vieth v. Jubelirer (2004):
- The Court revisited partisan gerrymandering but failed to agree on a standard for when it constitutes an unconstitutional violation. The plurality opinion suggested that no judicially manageable standard existed for resolving such disputes, effectively limiting federal intervention (Vieth v. Jubelirer, 541 U.S. 267)【7†source】.
- Rucho v. Common Cause (2019):
- In a significant decision, the Supreme Court ruled that partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions beyond the reach of federal courts. The Court held that there were no clear, manageable, and politically neutral standards for adjudicating such claims, leaving the regulation of partisan gerrymandering to state courts and legislatures (Rucho v. Common Cause, 588 U.S. ___)【8†source】.
Legislative and Constitutional Aspects
4. State Authority and Redistricting:
- The U.S. Constitution grants states the authority to determine the "Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives" (Article I, Section 4). This broad delegation of power has allowed states significant latitude in redistricting, including the ability to engage in partisan gerrymandering unless explicitly restricted by federal law or state constitutions【9†source】.
5. State-Level Reforms:
- In response to federal judicial limitations, some states have taken measures to combat gerrymandering through constitutional amendments and legislation. For example, states like California and Arizona have established independent redistricting commissions to draw district boundaries more impartially【10†source】.
Conclusion
The legal precedent for gerrymandering in U.S. states is rooted in historical practices, Supreme Court rulings, and constitutional provisions that grant states the authority to manage their own redistricting processes. While federal courts have intermittently addressed the issue, the most recent Supreme Court decision in Rucho v. Common Cause effectively left the regulation of partisan gerrymandering to the states. This complex legal landscape underscores the ongoing debate over how to ensure fair and equitable representation in American democracy.
See for yourself - how to stop the corruption.
https://www.wired.com/2017/04/how-math-can-save-democracy/
Sources:
1. [Smithsonian Magazine](https://www.smithsonianmag.com)
2. [History.com](https://www.history.com)
3. [Oyez - Colegrove v. Green](https://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1955/328us549)
4. [Oyez - Baker v. Carr](https://www.oyez.org/cases/1960/6)
5. [Oyez - Reynolds v. Sims](https://www.oyez.org/cases/1963/23)
6. [Oyez - Davis v. Bandemer](https://www.oyez.org/cases/1985/84-1244)
7. [Oyez - Vieth v. Jubelirer](https://www.oyez.org/cases/2003/02-1580)
8. [Oyez - Rucho v. Common Cause](https://www.oyez.org/cases/2018/18-422)
9. [U.S. Constitution - Article I, Section 4](https://www.constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/article/article-i)
10. [National Conference of State Legislatures](https://www.ncsl.org/research/redistricting.aspx)