Holding the line
The high court and gerrymandering
CREDIT the Boston Gazette for coming up with the colorful term “gerrymander” more than two centuries ago. The newspaper coined the word after Massachusetts Gov. Elbridge Gerry in 1812 approved a proposal to redraw the state’s legislative districts to his party’s advantage — one of the districts resembled a salamander.
Political concerns and the determination of legislative or congressional boundaries are as intertwined as a crown of thorns, of course. Both Republicans and Democrats have long sought to gain an edge through the process. In recent years, however — with the advance of Big Data and sophisticated software programs — several observers now fret that “gerrymandering” threatens the future of democracy.
On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court announced it will wade into the issue, hearing an appeal to a lower court decision that Wisconsin Republicans in 2010 improperly reconfigured the state’s districts to weaken the power of Democratic voters. Other legal challenges are currently pending to lines drawn by Republicans in North Carolina and Democrats in Maryland.
A handful of states have resorted to “independent” commissions to draw boundaries, but that only camouflages the inherent politics. Most states, including Nevada, empower state lawmakers with the task. The Supreme Court has heard a handful of cases on the issue, ruling in 1986 that the process could be challenged in court. That has prompted a slew of litigation in the past 30 years, but resulted in no clear guidance — and, at times, conflicting instruction.
A cynic might suggest that the increasing uproar over gerrymandering is a smokescreen Democrats have erected to deflect attention from the fact that they have been losing local elections at an unprecedented rate. During the Obama years, the party lost nearly 1,000 seats in state legislatures. The GOP now runs 67 of 98 partisan legislative chambers, The Hill reports.
With redistricting again on the horizon following the 2020 elections, perhaps progressives favor judicial intervention over the heavy lifting of convincing grasroots voters to embrace their leftist agenda. It has to be the corrupt district boundaries rather than the message, right?
Yes, gerrymandering in the extreme can indeed create less competitive districts and discourage voter participation. Those drawing the boundaries, whether politicians or citizen committees, should be reluctant to break apart neighborhoods and communities and avoid creating deformed districts to cluster particular voters.
But the notion that judicial intervention represents a panacea is folly. Voters with similar characteristics don’t always behave as a monolithic bloc whose political preferences can be cataloged based on income, party, race, ethnicity, gender or sexual orientation. In addition, demographic patterns themselves may be responsible for diluting the electoral influence of a particular group.
The Constitution, at least, offers a nominal check on gerrymandering chicanery by demanding that states redraw congressional boundaries every 10 years.
In 1986, Justice Antonin Scalia argued that absent blatant discrimination there was little the court could do in redistricting controversies because “no judicially discernible and manageable standards for adjudicating political gerrymandering claims have emerged.” It remains unlikely that the court will find one in the Wisconsin case.
The Review-journal welcomes letters to the editor. Letters should not exceed 275 words and must include the writer’s name, mailing address and phone number. Submissions may be edited and become the property of the Review-journal.
Email letters@reviewjournal.com Mail Letters to the Editor
P.O. Box 70
Las Vegas, NV 89125
Fax 702-383-4676 about parked cars that cover the ramp?
Funny thing, it never occurs to me to sue casinos, cities, stores or anyplace else that is not designed for the disabled. Dealing with these myriad issues has helped me to retain my independence, and even chat up new people in the process. There is a workaround for virtually everything. It takes me longer to get out the door, into my van, then into my powerchair, but so it goes. I still keep appointments, volunteer with animal rescue, and write a blog about my experiences.
Not a lawsuit filed anywhere.
Perhaps the Review-journal will consider writing about those of us who “just do it” without holding up people for money. Oh, and I carry hand-wipes for those times I can’t reach a bathroom soap dispenser. My hands are clean, as is my conscience. colon was falling out of her rectum. She saw three doctors in Canada and was told “learn to live with it.”
In both cases, I told her that my husband provided Medicare as part of her employment and that she should go into Detroit to get the care she needed. In both cases, she had the necessary surgery within a month and the problems were successfully treated.
I also have a cousin who lives in Toronto. She has raved about their single-payer system. But when she was diagnosed with a severe case of sleep apnea, she was asked one question: “Does your sleep apnea keep your husband awake?” When she replied “no,” she was told that she would have to pay for the surgery to relieve her problem.
This same cousin has a granddaughter who exhibited some psychological problems beginning with anorexia and depression. They were told that she needed to be seen and treated by a psychiatrist and that she would be put on a waiting list that might take a year. She told me that they could access a psychiatrist right away if they would pay for her treatment on their own.
This is just a sample of single-payer issues that I am familiar with. I could go on. While our system is not perfect, we know that nothing is. I feel strongly that we should be as free and as responsible as possible in our lives. It is best when we have choices and are not governed by some bean counters who might decide that we are not worth the expense.