USA TODAY International Edition
Our view: Supreme Court paves way for more hyperpartisanship
Recent years have been hard on a Supreme Court trying to maintain its reputation for impartial justice. Time and again, the justices have jumped into cases that advantage one political party at the expense of the other.
In virtually all of them — on issues ranging from the 2000 Florida recount to money in elections to restrictive voter ID laws to modern interpretations of the 1965 Voting Rights Act — the court has found a rationale for doing the Republican Party’s bidding.
That continued on Thursday, as the court claimed it was powerless to stop the sort of extreme political redistrict- ing that lets politicians choose their voters, rather than the other way around.
Chief Justice John Roberts’ 5-4 opinion in consolidated cases from Maryland and North Carolina found that gerrymandering is unhealthy, but is nonetheless a state prerogative that the court has no power to correct.
This disappointing decision will only heighten the hyperpartisanship and polarization that occur when districts are stacked with voters of one party or the other. (The fact that another ruling Thursday might prevent the Trump administration from manipulating the 2020 Census for political advantage, by adding a citizenship question, is not much consolation.)
True, both parties have engaged in political gerrymandering. And the court reviewed one glaring example from each. But thanks to the 2010 election that swept Republicans into power in numerous states and advances in computerization, the great majority of misdrawn maps — in places like Texas, North Carolina, Ohio, Wisconsin and Florida — were created by Republicans for the benefit of Republicans.
What to do now? For one, some blowback would not be out of order. The Supreme Court deserves respect, but not immunity from criticism.
With gerrymandering, the most powerful available tool is the ballot initiative. In 2015, the Supreme Court ruled that the people within a given state have the right at the ballot box to create bipartisan commissions to draw fair and reasonable political boundaries.
Voters in Michigan, Missouri and Utah voted last November to create district-drawing commissions or to otherwise limit legislatures’ powers to gerrymander. Several other states are considering similar measures for November 2020.
There are other ways for citizens to act as well. Last November, two of the most grossly gerrymandered states — Wisconsin (by Republicans) and Maryland (by Democrats) — elected or reelected governors of the opposite party with the power to veto redistricting plans. Next year, voters might want to consider casting strategic votes against the party that controls all of the strings.
It should not be like this. The American people should not be forced to act in ways that countermand the Supreme Court’s indifference to majority rule. But it is better to act than to merely rage about the incumbent protection racket.