High court rules politicians able to gerrymander
Lawmakers’ reactions to opinion mixed, propose different solutions
The U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling last week that will allow partisan gerrymandering to continue.
The highest court was asked to weigh in on the practice of state legislators manipulating the boundaries of an electoral constituency to the advantage of one party.
In the case of Rucho v. Common Cause, voters and plaintiffs in North Carolina and Maryland filed suits challenging their states’ congressional district maps
as unconstitutional due to partisan gerrymandering.
North Carolina plaintiffs claimed that the state’s congressional districts discriminated against Democrats.
The Maryland plaintiffs claimed that their state’s plan discriminated against Republicans. The specific gerrymandering case for Maryland that was heard along with Rucho v. Common Cause was Lamone v. Benisek.
In a 5–4 decision, the court held that “partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts,” leaving the decision up to the states to address. Chief Justice John Roberts and conservative associate justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh were in favor, while liberal associate justices Elena Kagan, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion.
“Its pretty simple — it gives both parties the ability to continue to do what they were doing,” Del. Gerald “Jerry” Clark (R-Calvert, St. Mary’s) said in an interview with the Maryland Independent. “I’m disappointed. It’s status quo.”
Clark said in Maryland he finds that decisions are being made not for the good of the people, but for the good of the leadership when drawing boundaries in the state. He referred to former Democratic governor Martin O’Malley, who was accused of, and admitted to, drawing district lines that favored Democrats.
The number of members in the U.S. House of Representatives per state is determined by the population count from the U.S. Census. State legislators in power have the ability to determine the redistricting of congressional, state and county voting districts.
In some cases, creating districts that increase a particular party’s chances of winning an election.
The most notable example in Maryland was the 2011 redrawing of the Sixth District, which opened the door in 2012 for then-challenger John Delaney, a Democrat, to defeat 10-term Republican Rep. Roscoe Bartlett.
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md., 5th) said the high court’s decision highlights the need for national and comprehensive redistricting reform.
“Both parties have used the redistricting process for partisan ends; only through the mutual agreement and cooperation of both parties will this practice end,” Hoyer said in a statement on Thursday. “We must ensure that all Americans’ voices are equally heard in Congress.”
Hoyer said the House of Representatives passed the “For the People Act” this year to end partisan redistricting on a national basis.
House Resolution 1 seeks to expand Americans’ access to the ballot box, reduce the influence of big money in politics, and strengthen ethics rules for public servants, and for other purposes.
The resolution also includes a provision requiring congressional redistricting to be conducted through a plan for independent state commissions. The “For the People Act” is now sitting in the U.S. Senate.
Maryland Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller Jr. (D-Calvert, Charles, Prince George’s), who has been criticized by conservative lawmakers in the legislature and by his 2018 Democratic primary challenger Tommi Makila for gerrymandering in the state, concurred with Hoyer’s call for national reform.
“From the beginning of this process, we have said that while our map is constitutional, this is still an issue that requires a national solution,” Miller said in a statement Thursday. “The Supreme Court ruling only strengthens the need for Congress and the president to work together to create a set of rules across the country, and I renew our call on Congress to present a set of rules and for the president to sign it. With this lawsuit over, I hope we can put the issue of the 2011 redistricting to rest and focus on the many pressing issues facing all Marylanders.”
In 2018, Miller told the Maryland Independent that Maryland’s population will dictate the governor’s plans for next year concerning apportionment, and that he expects there will be a recalculation of how many districts there will be based on the numbers. The longest serving Senate president in the country, Miller made clear to draw a distinction between federal redistricting and the practice of gerrymandering.
Gov. Larry Hogan (R) said last week’s ruling was “terribly disappointing” for those expecting fair elections.
“I pledge to vigorously continue this fight, both in Maryland and across our nation. Gerrymandering is wrong, and both parties are guilty. It stifles real political debate, contributes to our bitter partisan polarization, and deprives citizens of meaningful choices. The voters should pick their representatives, not the other way around. I will do everything in my power to restore free and fair elections for the people,” Hogan said in a press release on June 27, the day the court opinion was handed down.
The governor promised to introduce redistricting reform legislation in the state to put the drawing of districts “in the hands of a balanced, fair, and nonpartisan commission — instead of partisan politicians.”
“I support a nonpartisan commission to draw districts. Politicians should bot be drawing their districts,” Del. Mark Fisher (R-Calvert), who has long been vocal on the cessation of political gerrymandering, told the Maryland Independent last week.