On Monday, the Supreme Court announced it will hear an appeal regarding political gerrymandering, in what legal experts say could be the most consequential such case in decades. It could alter the tradition of political parties redrawing voting districts for their political advantage. The case, Gill v. Whitford, concerns Wisconsin’s legislature and its gerrymandering efforts in 2011.

In 2010, Republicans gained control of Wisconsin’s legislature for the first time in four decades. After the census, they redrew the state’s voting districts, and in 2012, despite winning less than 50 percent of the vote, Republicans captured 60 of the legislature’s 99 seats. In 2014, Republicans won 52 percent of the vote and increased their state assembly majority to 63 seats.

It is a common practice for state legislatures to redraw voting districts to confer an advantage on the governing party. Redistricting commonly takes place after the once-a-decade census is conducted. The Supreme Court has never struck down districts because of partisan advantage. However, it has, as recently as this year, nixed districts that were devised in order to dilute the vote of minority populations.

In May, the Supreme Court struck down two districts in North Carolina, affirming a lower court’s decision that the Republican-controlled legislature drew the map to dilute the influence of African-American voters.

Last November, a federal district court ruled that Republicans’ 2011 gerrymandering effort in Wisconsin crossed a line and was unconstitutional. In a 2-1 ruling, the court found that the districts were drawn in order to minimize the influence of Democratic votes, and were “designed to make it more difficult for Democrats, compared to Republicans, to translate their votes into seats,” the majority opinion concluded.

“Although a majority of the [Supreme Court] has suggested that states can violate the Constitution if they draw legislative districts primarily to benefit one political party, the justices have never been able to identify the specific point at which states cross the constitutional line,” Steve Vladeck, a Supreme Court analyst and law professor at the University of Texas School of Law, told CNN. “In this case, a lower court held that Wisconsin had indeed crossed that line.”

According to the plaintiffs in Gill v. Whitford, Republicans in Wisconsin accomplished their politically-motivated gerrymandering via two techniques: packing and cracking. Packing is fairly self-explanatory: the state legislature stuffs the opposition party’s voters into a single district, thus diluting each individual vote. Cracking is the practice of spreading opposition votes in districts where the governing party enjoys a majority, keeping those votes out of districts that could swing either way.

In a statement released Monday, Wisconsin’s Republican Attorney General Brad Schimel said the state’s redistricting was constitutional. He said: “I am thrilled the Supreme Court has granted our request to review the redistricting decision and that Wisconsin will have an opportunity to defend its redistricting process.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Supreme Court Will Hear Wisconsin Partisan Gerrymandering Case appeared first on Law Street.

Terrorist Targets Muslims in London, Muslim Girl Killed in Virginia

Late last night, a van rammed into people leaving a mosque in Finsbury Park in North London. One person died and 10 were injured in what police are investigating as a terror attack, as it was “quite clearly an attack on Muslims.” A white, 48-year-old man has been arrested and is being investigated for attempted murder. According to eyewitness reports, the man who died collapsed after the van hit people–it’s not clear whether his death was a direct result of the attack. The attacker struck just as people were leaving the mosque after evening prayers and breaking their Ramadan fast. Eyewitnesses said the man got out of the van after hitting people and said, “I want to kill Muslims,” repeatedly. He tried to flee the scene, but several people held him to the ground until police arrived.

This quote at #FinsburyPark station by @TfL is a fitting reminder that in tragedy we become a more unified, stronger force always pic.twitter.com/1Htakvuy2p

— Yasmina (@animsche) June 19, 2017

Also yesterday, a 17-year-old Muslim girl was found beaten to death in a pond in Virginia. The girl, identified as Nabra Hassanen, was reported missing after leaving a mosque in the early morning hours. She was with her friends on their way to get food after prayers, when two men with baseball bats started attacking them. In the chaos that followed, Nabra disappeared. Her body was found later that afternoon. A 22-year-old man was arrested. Although police aren’t investigating this murder as a hate crime, there is evidence to suggest that there has been a surge in anti-Muslim hate crimes in the United States–according to CAIR, there was a 44 percent increase just from 2015 to 2016.

if you believe muslim women face less violence in the west, youve been blinded. nabra, 17, murdered with baseball bat last night in virginia pic.twitter.com/zlZJclJ3qT

— Amani (@xoamani) June 19, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: June 19, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

On Monday, in a 5-3 decision, the Supreme Court struck down two mapped congressional districts in North Carolina on the grounds that Republican lawmakers drew them with the intention of diluting the African-American vote. In affirming a lower court’s decision, the justices found a narrow–and contentious–distinction between redistricting for political benefit, and redistricting with the intent to harm a certain slice of the electorate based on race.

The case, Cooper v. Harris, was the latest involving racially-motivated gerrymandering to reach the Supreme Court. According to the 1965 Voting Rights Act, state legislatures can redraw congressional districts based on a number of factors, partisanship being the most common. But although race can be one of a smattering of factors when redrawing a state’s districts, it can not be the predominant one.

“The sorting of voters on the grounds of their race remains suspect even if race is meant to function as a proxy for other (including political) characteristics,” Justice Elena Kagan wrote in the majority opinion. She was joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor.

The North Carolina districts in question include one of the state’s largest, District 1, and one of its smallest, District 12. Both are currently held by black Democrats, G.K. Butterfield and Alma Adams, respectively. According to Kagan, the Republican-held General Assembly fashioned the new congressional map after the 2010 census to devalue the black vote.

In District 1, after the census, black people of voting age rose from 48.6 percent to 52.7 percent. In District 12, the percentage of voting-age black residents hit 50.7 from 43.8. Republicans argue that tilting the districts majority-black is within their legal limits, because distinguishing the black vote from the Democratic vote–a vast majority of black voters support Democratic candidates–is almost impossible.

Justice Samuel Alito argued that same point in his dissenting opinion: “If around 90 percent of African-American voters cast their ballots for the Democratic candidate, as they have in recent elections, a plan that packs Democratic voters will look very much like a plan that packs African-American voters.”

He added: “If the majority party draws districts to favor itself, the minority party can deny the majority its political victory by prevailing on a racial gerrymandering claim.” Alito was joined in dissent by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy. Justice Neil Gorsuch, the court’s newest member, did not participate, because the case was argued on December 5, months before he was confirmed.

The court’s decision was welcome news for Butterfield and Adams. Butterfield said the decision “clearly reaffirms my position that the Republican-controlled state legislature unlawfully used race as the predominant factor” in gerrymandering. And Adams called for an independent redistricting commission in North Carolina, saying, “we should be working together to make access to the ballot box easier and more fair.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Supreme Court Finds Racial Bias in North Carolina Gerrymandering appeared first on Law Street.

Legalizing marijuana wasn’t the only interesting initiative on the Ohio ballot Tuesday; the state approved a new redistricting commission to prevent partisan district mapping, putting the task in the hands of a seven-person commission. Issue 1, which received an overwhelming majority of votes, will seek to limit the control of one party over elections for the state assembly.

The change will expand the existing five-person commission to include four additional legislators–ensuring that at least two members will be from the minority party. While redistricting in Ohio was already under the control of a commission outside of the legislature, the commission was composed of the Governor, State Auditor, Secretary of State, and one member from each party, which gave a 4 to 1 majority for the Republican Party. The new system will include incentives for bipartisanship and adds another member from each party to give additional voice to the minority.

The amendment also makes it more difficult for a long-term redistricting to be pushed through  without minority support. Redistricting, a process that occurs every 10 years after the Census, involves adjusting existing election districts to accommodate for population change. In order to create a new 10-year district map, both members of the minority party will need to approve the plan. However, a short-term map can be implemented for a period of four years if bipartisan support is not possible.

Issue 1 had support from both parties and the backing of over 100 organizations as Ohioans feel that their current redistricting system strongly favors the majority party. While the amendment will not change the way that the state’s Congressional districts are drawn, the newly expanded commission will draw maps for the Ohio House of Representatives and the Ohio Senate.

This plan seeks to eliminate the issues associated with gerrymandering, a long-derided practice where legislators in charge of redistricting create maps that favor their party (for more information on gerrymandering see Law Street’s explainer). Many people argue that gerrymandering is a significant source of America’s political woes while many political scientists claim that the practice isn’t nearly as big of an issue as people make it out to be.

Political scientists Jowei Chen and Jonathon Rodden contend that gerrymandering, as done by partisan state legislators, is not as much of a problem as people think it is. Instead, they find that “unintentional gerrymandering”–which has more to do with the geographic distribution of voters within a state–has a much greater effect. Unintentional gerrymandering is particularly an issue for the Democratic Party, whose constituents tend to cluster themselves in urban areas, whereas Republicans tend to be more rural and spread out. As a result, you see cities voting overwhelmingly for Democrats while rural districts voters lean Republican. This can lead to election results where the majority of the people in a state vote for Democratic candidates, but Republicans win more seats. Put simply, it’s not necessarily how districts are drawn that matter, but where people choose to live in the first place. Yet even when you account for unintentional gerrymandering, it’s clear that the practice has at least some effect on election outcomes.

While the issue of gerrymandering is often exaggerated, the extent of gerrymandering in Ohio is particularly extreme. A report from the League of Women’s Voters of Ohio found that in the 2014 elections, Republican candidates in the Ohio House of Representatives received 57 percent of the vote, but the party won 66 percent of the total number of seats. The same thing happened in the Ohio Senate but to a lesser extent–Republicans received 54 percent of the vote and 58 percent of the seats. The discrepancy between votes and seats illustrates the way in which district lines can influence election outcomes.

This trend is even starker when you look at the state’s Congressional districts, as Republican candidates statewide got about 52 percent of the vote but 75 percent of the Congressional seats. It is important to note that the new redistricting amendment will have no effect on the drawing of Congressional districts. However, that may change in the future–Ohio legislators have already introduced a bill that calls for all Ohio redistricting to be under the control of the seven-person commission.

In addition to disproportionate representation, many fear that gerrymandering leads to decreased responsiveness from elected officials. If districts are drawn to heavily favor certain politicians, they have very little fear of losing their bid for re-election. The classic criticism is that “politicians are choosing their voters, rather than voters choosing their politicians.” That sentiment was one of the main arguments in Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s decision to uphold an independent redistricting commission in Arizona, which created a legal justification for similar commissions in other states.

While Ohio’s new constitutional amendment will not solve all of the state’s districting problems, notably its Congressional districts, it will have some important consequences. First, by expanding the panel to include more people from the minority party, it will not be as easy for the majority party to create districts that favor certain officials. Second, the amendment also makes the redistricting process much more open and transparent, allowing people to understand how districts are drawn and the decision making that goes into them. Finally, as Andrew Prokop at Vox points out, the Ohio Constitution now says that no district “shall be drawn primarily to favor or disfavor a party.” Not only does it lay out important guidelines for what a good district should look like, it also creates a legal underpinning for people to challenge unfair redistricting in Ohio courts.

Read More: Gerrymandering: (Mis)Shaping America’s Vote?

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Issue 1: Ohioans Vote to Limit Gerrymandering appeared first on Law Street.

It sometimes seems that we’ve been seeing the same faces in Congress for years. It feels like people such as Representatives John Boehner and Nancy Pelosi have been in office forever despite Congress’s dismal approval ratings. Why do the same people keep getting reelected, and why is it so hard to unseat incumbents?

One popular answer to that question is gerrymandering. Gerrymandering is a redistricting tactic that is used to increase the influence and power of a particular political party. It has been practiced since the country’s founding and has long been a controversial endeavor. Courts have battled with the legality of gerrymandering based on race, ethnicity, and other factors for decades. Read on to learn about what gerrymandering is, what role it plays in American politics, and the arguments against the practice.

What is gerrymandering?

Gerrymandering occurs during the drawing of Congressional district lines when attempts are made to give one political party or candidate an election advantage. These lines are drawn specifically to make reelections easier for a party, or give a party greater influence on other districts. The main intention of gerrymandering is to help one party win as many seats as possible, whether in Congress or in state elections.

Each state has its own process for drawing district lines, and it is the people in charge, typically state legislators, who draw and approve of new boundary lines. Each district has to have close to the same population and new lines are drawn due to population fluctuations, most typically after a census.

What’s in a name?

One of the first known occurrences of gerrymandering in the United States happened during the 1789 election of the very first U.S. Congress. The Anti-Federalists and founding father Patrick Henry controlled the Virginia House of Delegates, the legislative body that drew the boundaries for the state’s districts. They purposely designed Virginia’s 5^th district in a way to keep James Madison, a Federalist, from winning the seat. However, their attempts were unsuccessful and Madison won the seat.

The term “gerrymander” came from the actions of the Governor of Massachusetts Elbridge Gerry in 1810. He was responsible for shaping new districts and the Boston Gazette commented that one of them was shaped like a salamander. Gerry’s name was combined with salamander and the term “gerrymander” was born.

Later, the Republican Party also used gerrymandering on a larger scale to acquire more states that were beneficial to the party. For example North and South Dakota, Republican friendly locations, were admitted as two separate states. That created more districts and senators for the Republicans than one state alone would.

Who draws the lines?

Each state has its own processes of redistricting. In 37 states, the state legislature governs the redistricting process and redraws the districts. It is usually passed like a piece of legislation and requires only a majority vote to pass. Because of this, the majority party in the legislature decides the district lines.

Of these 37 states, five use advisory commissions to help make fair district lines, but the ultimate decision is still up to the state legislature and it has no obligation to follow the commission’s recommendation.

In two states (New Jersey and Hawaii) the task of redistricting is up to political commissions, commissions comprised of certain elected officials. Typically there’s an equal amount of commissioners from each party and several commissioners from neither party. This ensures that no plan gets approved with only partisan support.

Four states (Washington, Idaho, California, and Arizona) use commissions made up of non-elected officials in an attempt to regulate the redistricting process and stop political influences altogether.

Seven states (Alaska, Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, Delaware and Vermont) have no need for redistricting plans as they have only one congressional representative each, also know as “at-large” districts.

Is redistricting allowed to benefit one party?

The Supreme Court Case Davis v. Bandermer (1986) found that partisan gerrymandering violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. At the same time, no decision was made on what legal standards partisan gerrymandering claims could be made. This has made it difficult to make legal claims against alleged partisan gerrymandering and has allowed it to continue.

In the 2004 Supreme Court case Vieth v. Jubelirer the court, once again, could not determine how gerrymandering claims could be evaluated.

Four Gerrymandering Tactics

There are four common types of gerrymandering:

Cracking is when voters of one type are spread throughout many districts in order to prevent them from having a large voting bloc in any district. An example of cracking is when poor, urban voters are spread across districts where a large majority of the voters are rural. This prevents the urban voters from carrying much weight during elections. This is the most common type of gerrymandering.

Packing involves concentrating as many as possible of a single bloc of voters into one district to reduce their impact in other districts. An example would be putting most urban voters in one district and very few in other districts to give them only one district where they have a large presence. Many times this creates a majority-minority district, when one district is composed mostly of minority groups.

Hijacking is done when a state’s districts are redrawn after a census. Two districts are altered so that two incumbents of the same party are forced to run against each other. This guarantees that one of them will be voted out. The other district, with no incumbent, is then more easily won by the other party.

Kidnapping also occurs during redistricting, when voters of the incumbent’s party are moved out of the district to make reelection more difficult. For example, Democratic voters are moved out of an incumbent Democrat’s district and are replaced with Republican voters. This makes it difficult for the Democratic candidate to be reelected and easier for a Republican candidate to win.

What do gerrymandered districts look like?

Sometimes districts are shaped in very deformed ways. For example, check out this map by the United States Geological Survey that shows Illinois’ 4th Congressional District. It was designed to connect Chicago with other cities in order to make a heavily Democratic district.

How does gerrymandering impact elections?

Approval ratings for Congress have been below 20 percent for years, but that doesn’t mean that 80 percent of incumbents get ousted every election. Instead, it’s usually the opposite.

During the 2012 U.S. House of Representatives election, Democratic candidates received 59,318,160 votes and Republicans received only 58,143,273 votes (48.8 percent to 47.6  percent.) But Democrats won 201 seats and Republicans won 234 seats (44.9 percent to 51.7 percent). Despite the Democrats receiving more votes as a whole due to gerrymandering, Republican incumbents were mostly able to hold on to their seats. Overall roughly 90 percent of incumbents won reelection in 2012. On a state level, in 2010 Republicans won majorities in many state legislatures, and given the 2010 Census results, many districts were redrawn to benefit Republican incumbents.

Almost all districts have been gerrymandered to help incumbents get reelected. Most legislatures are typically comprised of both the majority and minority parties; they mutually agree to pack each district with their respective party’s voters in order to ensure reelection. Many of these districts are called 70/30 districts where two districts that are split 50/50 in party affiliation are each drawn 70/30 for a different party, guaranteeing each party wins one district. This is known as bipartisan gerrymandering, which protects both parties’ interests.

But sometimes a legislature is controlled largely by one party. They may redistrict in a cracking manner that prevents the minority party from having any significant influence in any district, making reelection very easy for the majority party’s incumbents.This is partisan gerrymandering which favors only one party.

How can boundary lines be decided objectively?

One of the biggest problems opponents have with gerrymandering is that the self-interested party is the one who oversees and commands redistricting. These parties are accused of only caring about aiding themselves and not their constituents. Opponents to gerrymandering have proposed different remedies to prevent gerrymandering.

Court approved redistricting would prevent specific party-favored redistricting and strike down gerrymandering plans. This would require all redistricting plans to be presented and approved by either state or federal courts. The Supreme Court has already ruled that if a plan violates the Voting Rights Act of 1965, a new plan must be presented that fixes the gerrymandering problem. If that plan also violates the law, a federal court could draw the plan.

Independent non-partisan commissions have been proposed to decide redistricting plans without political influence. Arizona, California and Washington have already adopted similar commissions.

Who agrees with gerrymandering?

Despite the disapproval by many of gerrymandering practices, there are some who argue for the practice.

By making it easier for incumbents to be reelected, there is less of a chance of a huge wave of change each election. If voter opinion changes from cycle to cycle (as it often does) there will not be huge shifts of changing leadership. If one party in the House is given an outstanding majority, any bill passed may be too polarizing to pass in the Senate, resulting in gridlock. Gerrymandering allows for gradual changes in representative composition.

Packing gerrymandering can also be used to prevent a minority group from being underrepresented. If a minority does not have enough voters in any district to have much influence in elections, then putting them in one district gives them a higher chance of electing someone based on their beliefs.

Conclusion

Party politics holds a very large role in how districts are drawn. While the United States’ democracy ensures that everyone will have the chance to vote on who represents them, gerrymandering is seen by some as an impediment to true representation. While gerrymandering can have some benefits, it is also responsible for keeping many disliked representatives in office. While there may never be a way to make sure that everyone’s vote makes a big impact, drawing districts fairly is an admirable goal toward which we should all strive.

Resources

Primary

NationalMaps.gov: Printable Maps

Additional

Study: Gerrymandering: Definition, History, Types & Examples 

Politics & Policy: Gerrymandering – Proving all Politics is Local

Loyola Law School: Who Draws the Lines?

Gallup: 2014 U.S. Approval of Congress Remains Near All-Time Low

POLITICO: 2012 Reelection Rate: 90 percent

Newsworks: Boehner and House Republicans Lack Mandate to Oppose Obama

Mike Stankiewicz

Mike Stankiewicz came to Washington to follow his dream of becoming a journalist. The native New Yorker studied Broadcast Journalism and Law and Society at American University. In his leisure time he enjoys baseball, hiking, and classic American literature. Contact Mike at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Gerrymandering: (Mis)Shaping America’s Vote? appeared first on Law Street.

It’s a new year, and I for one am excited to see what it will bring. No matter what, there will definitely be a lot of legal issues to discuss, debate, and bring changes to all of our lives. The five cases below are the top five to watch in 2015; some have already appeared before SCOTUS and await decisions in 2015, while others will be heard throughout the year. Here are five fascinating Supreme Court cases to watch in 2015.

Anthony Elonis v. United States

Law Street has actually been covering this interesting case for a while–check out our coverage of the case, the University of Virginia law clinic that’s gotten involved, and the all the legalese behind it. The reason we’ve followed it so closely is because it really is fascinating. Anthony Elonis was convicted of threatening multiple people, including his wife, an FBI agent, the police, and a kindergarten class. But these weren’t threats in the classical sense. They were written on his Facebook page in the form of rap lyrics. He claims the posts are art, protected under the First Amendment, and that he never intended to hurt anyone. It will be up to the Supreme Court to decide if such intent needs to be shown when convicting someone of making threats. The case was heard on December 1, 2014, but the court has yet to rule.

King v. Burwell

In King v. Burwell, SCOTUS will yet again be asked to weigh the Affordable Care Act. This time, it’s all about the tax subsidies, and weirdly, the central question in really depends on one word: “state.” The way that the ACA reads, in order for an individual to qualify for a tax subsidy, he needs to be receiving healthcare “through an exchange established by the state.” So, can people residing in states that haven’t set up their own exchanges, but instead rely on the federal program, get those tax subsidies? The IRS certainly thinks so and has been granting the subsidies. It’s an argument based pretty much on semantics, but it could have a huge effect on the ACA itself. This case will be heard in March.

Peggy Young v. United Parcel Service 

This case will ask the Supreme Court to weigh in on how pregnant employees are treated. Peggy Young, formerly a delivery driver for UPS, is arguing that the company violated the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA). The PDA says that pregnant workers should be treated the same as any other worker who is “similar in their ability or inability to work.” Young and her lawyers argue that other employees who sustain temporary injuries or something of the like are moved to other positions, while she was forced to take unpaid leave. UPS claims that those other workers are given different jobs based on policies that don’t apply to Young, and she was treated the same as she would have been had she sustained an injury out of work. It will be up to the Supreme Court to decide who’s in the right here. The case was just heard in December 2014; an opinion is forthcoming.

Holt v. Hobbs

Holt v. Hobbs will require the justices to look into prison procedures that prevent inmates from growing a beard in Arkansas. The plaintiff, Gregory Holt, wants to be able to grow a half-inch beard in accordance with his Muslim faith. The state is arguing that it could be used to smuggle drugs or other contraband. SCOTUS will have to rule on whether or not those prison procedures violate the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). The question that the justices will consider is whether or not there’s a compelling enough government interest to prevent Holt from expressing his religion. The case was heard in October 2014; the opinion will be issued this year.

Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama

This case centers on the practice of gerrymandering. The justices will have to decide whether or not it was illegal for Alabama to redraw the districts in 2012 after the Census in a way that packed black voters into particular districts. The Alabama Black Caucus says that it relied too much on race when drawing those districts. While partisan gerrymandering is usually legal, racial gerrymandering is not–so the justices will have to decide which actually happened here. This case was heard in November 2014; the opinion is expected in the coming months.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post SCOTUS Cases to Watch in 2015 appeared first on Law Street.

A Florida judge has ordered the state to redraw its congressional districts by August 15th, in order to comply with the state’s Fair Districts Constitutional Amendment. This is a ruling that the Democrats have pushed for, because they feel that the state map has been drawn to give the GOP an advantage. But there is an unlikely group working against this change from within the Democratic Party–the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC).

The Florida Constitution states that no district shall be drawn with the intention of giving favor or disfavor to a particular political party. The law also states that districts shall not be drawn with the intent of denying equal opportunity to racial minorities to participate in the political process. Last month, a judge ruled that politics were taken into consideration for the drawing of two districts and that these districts made a “mockery” of the constitutional amendment. The districts that were ruled unconstitutional are the Fifth and the Tenth and can be seen below:

Thanks WtxlTV!

The judge, Terry Lewis, ruled that these two districts are drawn to divide up the Orlando area, and to connect African American voters from the Orlando and Jacksonville areas in order to favor the GOP. Lewis gave the GOP until August 15th to submit a new map for consideration, at which point he will decide whether to delay the 2014 midterm election in Florida in order to allow the new map to be implemented, or to wait until 2016 to implement the changed map. The Democratic Party backed this suit and is pushing for the districts to be implemented for the 2014 election. Democrats currently have 10 of the 27 seats in Florida, and could stand to gain a couple seats if the map is redrawn. But the CBC, made up entirely of Democrats, is against overturning the current map.

Marcia Fudge, the chairwoman of the CBC, sent a strongly worded letter to Steve Israel, head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC). Fudge wrote, “per our prior discussion, we are extremely disturbed by the DCCC’s efforts to dismantle CBC districts in states that have historically proven to be difficult to elect minority members.” Her issue is that Florida’s Fifth District is represented by CBC member Congresswoman Corrine Brown, and the redistricting effort might cause her to lose her seat. This may seem a bit odd, as Democrats stand to gain seats overall with a new map, but the Fifth District is an example of packing. Packing is a form of gerrymandering where a certain group or party is packed as much as possible into one district, in order to make sure there voting power only impacts on district. In the case of Florida’s Fifth, Republicans packed African Americans from Jacksonville and Orlando together, to make sure their votes would only impact a district that would go Democrat anyways. Because of the way the Fifth is currently drawn, it is no surprise the Democratic Party nominated an African American candidate that went on to win. But if the map is redrawn and the African American voters in the Fifth are divided, it will may result in more white Democrats being elected, and Brown could lose her seat. This would occur because the Fifth currently has a majority of African American voters, but if the Orlando and Jacksonville parts of the district are split, Brown’s district will change. So while the Democratic Party stands to gain seats, the CBC has to contend with possibly losing a member.

This issue is a reflection of what is fundamentally wrong with our election system. A minority group is actually advocating to keep a district that was gerrymandered by the opposing political party. That being said, were the Fifth to be divided, it is by no means certain Brown would lose her seat. But the CBC is opposing the change because they feel like African Americans are already underrepresented in Congress. Perhaps this whole issue–a judge forcing the redrawing of a map, considering delaying a election, and the CBC opposing a change that would benefit its own party–is evidence that we need election reform that would fairly represent all Americans. We need to stop allowing mapmakers to decide who Americans are going to be represented by.

—

Matt DeWilde (@matt_dewilde25) is a member of the American University class of 2016 majoring in politics and considering going to law school. He loves writing about politics, reading, watching Netflix, and long walks on the beach. Contact Matt at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Jaxport via Flickr]

Matt DeWilde

Matt DeWilde is a member of the American University class of 2016 majoring in politics and considering going to law school. He loves writing about politics, reading, watching Netflix, and long walks on the beach. Contact Matt at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Redrawing the Map: Florida’s Congressional Mess appeared first on Law Street.

On June 2, the Supreme Court decided to hear a challenge to Alabama’s Republican drawn legislative map–Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. State of Alabama. The Alabama Legislative Black Caucus (ALBC) is suing under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, arguing that that the Republican-controlled legislature has racially gerrymandered Alabama’s state legislative districts. Racial gerrymandering is the act of drawing voting districts that decrease the voting power of minorities. However, in this case race was not the only driving factor. The goal of this gerrymandering was to provide the most Republican seats possible, and to do this the Republicans needed to decrease the power of the African American vote by packing them in as few voting districts as they could.

This case is reminiscent of  Shelby v. Holder, in which the Supreme Court struck down Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act, but chose to uphold Section 5. Section 4 established that certain areas of the country needed to be reviewed and subjected to targeted remedies. An example of this section in action was the suspension of the tricky literacy test that African Americans had to pass in order to be able to vote. Section 5 provides that any change that impacted voting in these areas has to be reviewed by the federal government. The majority opinion, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, held that Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act imposed burdens that are no longer necessary giving current race conditions. They held that the constraints in this section once made sense, but now represents an unconstitutional burden that conflicts with a state’s right to run its own elections. They cited that the original goal of the law was to narrow the voting turnout gap, which is no longer a problem.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote a passionate dissent, in which she said that the law should have been upheld, citing that racial problems still existed. She admitted that “access to ballots” for African Americans was no longer a problem, but that they faced new issues, such as racial gerrymandering. This would make me think that Ginsburg would rule in favor of the ALBC in the current case, but she also said that the ruling in Shelby crippled Section 5. This means that she might be forced to rule against the ALBC without Section 4.

It would seem very unlikely that the court would rule in favor of the Alabama Legislative Black Caucus after its ruling in Shelby. Shelby was decided along partisan lines with the conservative judges voting to strike down Section 4 while the more liberal judges all voted to uphold the section. There seems to be no apparent reason why any of the conservative judges would give any power back to the Voting Rights Act, especially considering the fact that Chief Justice Robert’s opinion in Shelby took away the power of Section 5. To rule in favor of the ALBC would be to backtrack on his ruling last year. This could possibly mean that the conservative judges may have been the ones who granted certiorari as an opportunity to say that this type of gerrymandering is constitutional or to strike down Section 5. Justice Thomas had even wanted to strike down Section 5 in Shelby.

Because racial gerrymandering is not likely to be prevented by the courts, the key to stopping it will be to stop all gerrymandering. As mentioned earlier in the article, gerrymandering is not used to give a disadvantage to any particular race, but to give a disadvantage to a particular political party. So in this case, Republicans wanted to hurt Democrats by putting as many African Americans, in as few districts as possible, in order to hurt their voting power for the Democratic Party. Democrats also gerrymander in states where they control the legislature, for example Maryland, so this is not a one party issue or a race issue. Both parties limit the voting power of the minority party in the states they control. Therefore the solution to this, and the racial gerrymandering that this case is about, is to create independent, bipartisan redistricting committees, such as the one in California. This will end partisan control of state congressional districts and lead to more fair and balanced districts, with no citizens having their voting power reduced by a mapmaker.

Image courtesy of [Cle0patra via Flickr]

Matt DeWilde

Matt DeWilde is a member of the American University class of 2016 majoring in politics and considering going to law school. He loves writing about politics, reading, watching Netflix, and long walks on the beach. Contact Matt at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Don’t Count on the Supreme Court to End Racial Gerrymandering appeared first on Law Street.