Supreme Court Opened the Door to Gerrymandering
Joel D. Joseph, author of Black Mondays: Worst Decisions of
the Supreme Court, Sixth Edition
For forty-seven years, the law of the land was one man, one vote. This was decided by the Supreme Court in Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962). It was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court found that redistricting qualifies as a justiciable question under the Fourteenth Amendment, thus enabling federal courts to hear Fourteenth Amendment-based gerrymandering cases. The court summarized its Baker holding in a later decision as follows: Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment limits the authority of a State Legislature in designing the geographical districts from which representatives are chosen either for the State Legislature or for the Federal House of Representatives. Gray v. Sanders, 372 U.S. 368 (1963).In 2019 in Rucho v. Common Cause, the Supreme Court essentially reversed Baker v. Carr, holding that gerrymandering cases were not justiciable. In other words, the Supreme Court told the states to gerrymander because no one could file suit challenging it.
The Supreme Court of Chaos
Much like the reversal of Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court has created havoc around the nation with its failure to enforce rules against gerrymandering. Abortion is now in the hands of the states and there are numerous battles, mothers dying unnecessarily and doctors under attack, all caused by the Supreme Court. Now the states are in mortal combat over gerrymandering.
Texas is now considering a gerrymandering plan proposed by President Trump that would add five more Republican seats in the state. Democratically controlled states including New York, Illinois and California are threatening to gerrymander their states if Texas enacts its undemocratic plan.
Eight states have independent electoral commissions to ensure that redistricting does not favor one party. These states are Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Michigan, Montana and Virginia, liberal states, moderate states and conservative states. California may abandon its impartial electoral commission to counteract Texas' undemocratic attempt to seize power for the Republicans.
What Can Be Done to Prevent Gerrymandering?
In 1993, the Supreme Court ruled that odd-shaped districts in which minorities were clumped together was a sign that the district was unconstitutionally formed. Justice O'Connor, a Ronald Reagan Republican appointee, ruled, We believe that reapportionment is one area where appearances do matter. A reapportionment plan that includes in one district individuals who belong to the same race, but are otherwise widely separated by geographical and political boundaries, and who may have little in common with one another but the color of their skin, bears an uncomfortable resemblance to political apartheid. Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630 (1993). That case used the Voting Rights Act to overturn gerrymandering. Texas' gerrymanding plan can be attacked as a violation of the Voting Rights Act.
Under Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution, "The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators."
There have been many congressional proposals to regulate gerrymandering, but none have passed. Most recently, Senator Amy Klobuchar introduced The Redistricting Reform Act of 2024. Unfortunately, this bill went nowhere.
While Congress probably has the power to regulate gerrymandering, it appears to have no will to do so. The courts may be open to a challenge based on race under the Voting Rights Act. The most likely solution is for a truce between the Democrats and the Republicans. If the political parties do not have a ceasefire agreement in place, it is likely that Texas will be the first to gerrymander, followed by California, New York and Illinois.
Even though most voters are against gerrymandering, the political parties are likely to keep the battle going.
