Partisan Charade

Supreme Court should put limits on gerrymandering for political advantage

The U.S. Constitution requires that voting boundaries for state and federal elected representatives be redrawn every 10 years following the national census. This is done to make sure each district has roughly an equal population and ensure—as best can be done—equal representation.

But in most states—including Arkansas and Texas—the party in power moves the lines around to ensure as much of an advantage for their candidates as humanly possible in a process that has come to be called gerrymandering.

We have seen it several times in our area over the years, where district lines have been configured in the most bizarre ways to eke out an edge for one or the other party.

Both Republicans and Democrats do it when they can. It’s a time-honored tradition that of late has invited frequent court battles, especially when lines are drawn that marginalize minority voters.

That tradition might be coming to an end. On Monday the U.S. agreed to hear a Wisconsin case charging Republican lawmakers with drawing district lines after the 2010 Census that unfairly impacted the voting rights of Democrats.

As an example, they point to elections in 2012 where Democrats won 51 percent of votes for the Wisconsin legislature, but GOP candidates took down 60 of the 99 seats—a touch over 60 percent— with 48.6 percent of the vote.

Last year the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago ruled the lines unconstitutional and ordered them redrawn. Now we will see what the nation’s highest court has to say.

The Supreme Court has, for the most part, been vague on redistricting for political gain. In 2006 the justices ruled against “excessive” gerrymandering for party advantage, but so far have not defined what excessive means. Now they have a chance.

In our view it’s high time this partisan charade ended. Fair representation does not mean having lines drawn to create “safe” districts for any party or to dilute the voting power of any group. Redistricting as we know it is all about perpetuating incumbent power. But there is no guarantee the high court will see it that way. Especially with five conservative justices who all voted to grant the state’s request to temporarily put off redrawing district lines as the 7th Circuit ordered.

We hope when they take a closer look at the case, they will see it’s time to end this ruling party perk once and for all.