Death of the gerrymander?

Two cases give the Supreme Court another chance

After hearing oral arguments in two separate cases, the U.S. Supreme Court has been afforded the chance to finally corral the dubious practice of partisan gerrymandering. The court would be wise to seize the opportunity.

The justices are considering cases — one from North Carolina and the other from Maryland

— that allege partisan legislators altered district boundaries so egregiously as to usurp the will of the voters.

Given the court’s newly cemented conservative majority, many voting-rights advocates have expressed concern that partisan gerrymandering could be given a legal rubberstamp from the highest court in the land. Imagine people's surprise, then, when Justice Brett Kavanaugh offered a plainspoken acknowledgement of the practice’s inherent dangers:

“Extreme partisan gerrymandering is a real problem for our democracy,” he said.

Some have argued that Justice Kavanaugh, who replaced frequent swing voter Anthony Kennedy, may have simply been playing devil’s advocate. But his line of questioning during the hearings, often quite critical of gerrymandering and its political motivations, would seem to signal his true feelings. Justice Neil Gorsuch, another recent appointee to the court, seemed more keen on punting the question of redistricting to the states.

But partisan gerrymandering is becoming a greater issue with each passing election, as legislators from both sides of the aisle work tirelessly to one-up one another with increasingly absurd district rearrangements.

Voting is a sacred constitutional right, and it’s the Supreme Court’s job to protect it.

Partisan gerrymandering undercuts the power of many people’s votes, rendering them virtually meaningless. Advocates could work for years in each state to eliminate gerrymandering or the Supreme Court could responsibly stop the practice now. The court should opt for the latter.