Justices split on gerrymandering
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court heard arguments on Tuesday in a case that could reshape American democracy by considering whether extreme partisan gerrymandering — the drawing of voting districts to give lopsided advantages to the party in power — violates the Constitution.
There was something like consensus that voting maps warped by politics are an unattractive feature of American democracy. But the justices appeared split about whether the court could find a standard for determining when the practice had crossed a constitutional line.
“Gerrymandering is distasteful,” said Justice Samuel Alito, “but if we’re going to impose a standard on the courts it’s going to have to be manageable.”
Paul Smith, a lawyer for Democratic voters challenging a voting map in Wisconsin, urged the court to act.
“You are the only institution in the United States that can solve this problem,” he told the justices.
On Tuesday, lawyers for the state of Wisconsin urged the justices to reject a challenge to that state’s redistricting map, drawn by the Republican-controlled government, saying that Democratic critics were relying on flimsy and hypothetical social science evidence to prove that the maps led to the unconstitutional advantage of one party over the other.
Former California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger joined protesters at the Supreme Court demanding an end to the redistricting practice saying, “I say this time, we say ‘Hasta la vista’ to gerrymandering!” The Washington Post contributed to this report.