A punt on remap laws
The Supreme Court is sidestepping a decision on the political dark art of gerrymandering. The justices are stretching the notion of judicial restraint to an extreme by ducking a pair of cases focusing on politically contrived voting districts.
In an era of rollbacks on voting rights, partisan control of how election maps are drawn further undermines our democracy. In cases from Wisconsin and Maryland, both swing states, the issue needs to be resolved, but the justices, citing procedural problems, kicked the decision back to lower courts to resolve.
The nub of the issue is who controls drawing up of voting districts, a process known as reapportionment. That task is generally left to state legislatures, where the parties in power skew the maps their way to ensure political control. That’s what Republicans in Wisconsin and Democrats in Maryland pulled off to keep districts drawn to favor their party’s control.
The court has faulted remaps that show racial bias, but it’s never resolved what constitutes partisan unfairness. In the latest cases, it found fault with details of the cases and passed on a chance for a more sweeping and conclusive decision. Gerrymandering, the practice of devising snug districts for incumbents, remains alive for now.
A third case awaits, one that should oblige the nine justices to take a stand. It comes from North Carolina,
where gerrymandered congressional districts provoked a brewing fight expected to land on the docket.
The cases are crucial with approaching November elections, which are likely to take place under the partisan-drawn boundaries. The court’s delays will hinder chances for a fair vote. In the background are other troubling restrictions, such as voter ID laws and purges of rolls.
California election maps, let it be noted, are sketched not by politicians but a citizen panel. That came about via a public initiative, not through the good wishes of this state’s Democrat-led statehouse. Reformers may need to go that route in other states, but a legal recourse can still work, too. That’s if the Supreme Court can face the fact that a partisan stranglehold on election boundaries harms democracy.