For unsafe seats

The high court should curtail gerrymandering

For the first time in 13 years, the U.S. Supreme Court is reviewing a case that could end or limit political gerrymandering. The court should seize the opportunity to curtail a practice that has silenced many voters’ voices and contributed to the sclerosis in Washington, D.C., and some state capitals.

In Gill v. Whitford, the court is reviewing a challenge to a 2011 reapportionment by Wisconsin’s legislature that, the plaintiffs say, ensured GOP hegemony in the statehouse and all but emasculated Democratic voters. In a story about the case Wednesday, the PostGazette’s Tracie Mauriello quoted one of the Democratic plaintiffs, Helen Harris, as saying politicians started ignoring her after the redrawing of voting districts six years ago.

Gerrymandering, it is often said, turns the political process upside down, with elected officials choosing their voters instead of voters choosing their representatives. Gerrymandering affects the composition of state legislatures and the U.S. House. Neither party is blameless here. After each census, whichever party holds the majority in a state’s legislature tries to redraw districts so as to solidify its hold on power.

That’s why it’s important that the Supreme Court step in and do what state legislatures won’t.

Gerrymandering is a way for party leaders to keep the rank and file in line; a lawmaker who fails to vote the “right” way could find his or her seat eliminated after the next census. Gerrymandering also hurts the political process by decreasing the number of competitive races and creating a climate where incumbents sail to re-election. Why is voter turnout so low? In many cases, voters have little incentive to go to the polls.

Worse, when incumbents hold “safe” seats, they have little reason to adopt moderate positions on the issues. The result is a polarized political environment — gridlock — in Congress and some states’ legislatures. Even one party’s caucus can be paralyzed. In Pennsylvania, a budget stalemate was complicated last summer when House Republicans of various stripes had a difficult time agreeing on a revenue package. The ideal situation would be the drawing of legislative and congressional districts with no safe seats — or at least many more competitive ones. An end to gerrymandering very well could mean elimination of the “majority minority” districts specifically created in the wake of the civil rights movement to get black candidates elected to office. The court would have a difficult time justifying one kind of gerrymandering while eliminating another.

In 2004, the court had a chance to curtail gerrymandering when it reviewed a case, Vieth v. Jubelirer, that originated in Pennsylvania. But the court took no action after concluding there was no way to determine whether gerrymandering was unconstitutional.

In Gill v. Whitford, lawyers for the Democratic voters have proposed some ways of measuring the deleterious effects. Wisconson’s solicitor general, Misha Tseytlin, has derided those ideas, rooted in social science, as “hypothetical conjecture.” Will the court agree with her? Will it pass on this case, too?

In Pennsylvania, there is legislation in both chambers to put redistricting in the hands of an independent commission. That’s a good Plan B for Pennsylvania, but a national solution is needed. Let’s hope the court weighs in this time with a ruling that curtails gerrymandering, gives voters real choices and gets the political system working again.