The high court’s hint on partisan gerrymandering

Individual voters must first show how such party-driven redistricting harms them, the justices ruled, which calls for voters themselves to cooperate in this very partisan age to end the practice.

Reuters
Demonstrators rally in front of the Supreme Court before oral arguments on March 28 regarding a redistricting case.

In a unanimous ruling on Monday, the Supreme Court hinted at how it may someday decide on partisan gerrymandering, or the drawing of electoral districts by state legislators to keep one party in power. Individual voters, the justices concluded, must first show whether they were harmed by the boundaries of their particular voting district. For the courts, the effect of gerrymandering on political or social groups is not a matter of justice.

In other words, the court has now set a high bar for when judges should intervene, if at all, in what is fundamentally a political decision on how to group voters. Courts have long been reluctant to decide when a district’s boundaries favor one party, perhaps hoping voters might someday overcome their political divisions and cooperate in electing representatives who oppose partisan gerrymandering.

In its ruling, the high court did leave a door open for further review of this common practice by both political parties. It sent a case from Wisconsin back to a lower court to allow plaintiffs to prove whether “concrete and particularized injuries” from gerrymandering had placed a burden on their individual votes. The court refused to hear whether Wisconsin’s redistricting by a Republican majority after the 2010 Census had harmed Democrats by “packing” or “cracking” districts with voters along partisan lines.

From the court’s view, the remedy for any gerrymandering lies in defining individual harm, and only in a voter’s district, rather than the effects on a party statewide. In the past, the court has identified such harm when districts were drawn to harm minority voters, such as blacks. But in politics, unlike with race, a voter’s identity can be fluid, depending on multiple factors, shifting from one election to the next or from issue to issue or even across party lines. The justices are wary of setting a permanent rule for redistricting if voters can be impermanent in how they vote.

This reasoning fits into what James Madison had hoped for the American republic. He helped design a democracy that would force individuals to see the greater good by cooperating rather than simply competing for selfish or group interests. Voters would shift their alliances and join forces depending on an issue, knowing that today’s majority could easily be tomorrow’s minority.

Issues may change, but the common interest in getting along does not. Individuals may have a political identity – Democrat or Republican or something else – but they must also recognize the inherent dignity and worth of other citizens. Treating others by social, economic, or political class, even to the point of sorting them into electoral districts by such groupings, only feeds into social fragmentation.

The drawing of lines for electoral districts must build community across partisan divides rather than divide people by mutable political identities. The courts have been wise not to intervene in partisan gerrymandering so far. They do stand ready to remedy individual harm. But perhaps they hope enough voters will see the harm for themselves and use the ballot box and not a lawsuit to fix it.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.