Penn Undergraduate Law Journal
  • Home
  • About
    • Mission
    • Masthead
    • Faculty Advisory Board
    • Partner Journals
    • Sponsors
  • Submissions
  • Full Issues
  • The Roundtable
  • Events
  • Contact
    • Contact
    • Applications
    • FAQs
  • Home
  • About
    • Mission
    • Masthead
    • Faculty Advisory Board
    • Partner Journals
    • Sponsors
  • Submissions
  • Full Issues
  • The Roundtable
  • Events
  • Contact
    • Contact
    • Applications
    • FAQs

The Roundtable


Welcome to the Roundtable, a forum for incisive commentary and analysis
on cases and developments in law and the legal system.


INTERESTED IN wRITING FOR tHE rOUNDTABLE?

The Courts Assert Themselves On Gerrymandering

2/14/2018

0 Comments

 
Picture
By Owen Voutsinas-Klose
Owen Voutsinas-Klose is a freshman at the University of Pennsylvania.

Gerrymandering, the time-honored American tradition that gets its name from Massachusetts’s early 19th century-era Governor Elbridge Gerry, is seeing a new threat from a judiciary increasingly keen on invalidating overtly partisan maps.  

The process of redistricting varies greatly by state, with some states including California, Arizona and Iowa using independent citizens commissions or offices to draw lines following each census with the goal of eliminating partisan bias. However, in the vast majority of states, the legislature is responsible for creating maps. The issue of gerrymandering took up special prominence in recent years after the GOP wave in 2010 allowed the party power in a record number of state legislatures coincidentally in the year of a census, allowing them control of maps. A particularly egregious example of this gerrymandering is in Wisconsin, where the 2010 elections gave the GOP total control over government. Using computer software and taking advantage of the tendency of Democrats to congregate in smaller areas, Republicans enacted a map that resulted in them taking 60 of 99 seats in the Wisconsin Assembly, despite losing the popular vote to Democrats in the 2012 election cycle [1].   
Courts have traditionally refrained from interfering in gerrymandering cases, especially because there is no readily available test by which to judge a partisan gerrymander and whether it violates the right to equal representation. In the words of Chief Justice John Roberts, when a court overturns a legislatures’ redistricting map, “you’re taking [these] issues away from democracy.” The 1965 Voting Rights Act prohibits gerrymandering with the intent to racially discriminate, but no statute explicitly prohibits gerrymandering for the purpose of favoring one party over another. However, the two often overlap. In 2017, the Supreme Court ruled that the drawing of two of North Carolina’s congressional districts was racially motivated, by Republicans who sought to pack as many black (and likely Democratic) voters into the districts as possible in order to make other districts more conservative [2].  

​This intervention by the Supreme Court has opened the gates to more willing judicial intervention in gerrymandering cases. This current term, the Supreme Court stands ready to rule on the constitutionality of partisan gerrymanders in the Wisconsin case, and is hearing a case challenging a gerrymander in the Democratic state of Maryland that has resulted in only one Republican elected to the U.S. House out of eight districts, despite Clinton in 2016 winning by a comparably much smaller margin. In North Carolina, a three judge panel in January tossed out the state’s congressional map and ordered the legislature to craft a new plan within three weeks, finding that the gerrymander violates voters’ Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection [3]. Days after, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court invalidated the state’s heavily gerrymandered maps by ruling that they violated the state constitution [4].

Why are judges seemingly more willing to get involved in redistricting cases? One factor is clearly the Supreme Court, which by accepting the Wisconsin case signalled to lower courts a desire to wade into the issue. Secondly, increased consensus in the sociological community has made it easier to find a standard with which to judge the impacts of gerrymandering. Sociologists have begun to use a standard known as the efficiency gap to measure the impact of gerrymandering, which counts the number of votes that do not contribute to a victory (indicating a lopsided outcome indicative of a gerrymandered district). This measurement has become increasingly popular in social science circles, and serves as a key part of the plaintiff’s argument in the Wisconsin case [5].  

Most court watchers agree that Justice Kennedy is the swing vote on gerrymandering, given his previous indications of willingness to strike down maps. One of Justice Kennedy’s main concerns raised in oral arguments, however, is that a decision in favor of the Wisconsin plaintiffs without a clear standard will open the floodgates to every instance of partisan redistricting being challenged in court. What that standard should be, and how to base its invention in legal precedent, remains the challenge the court will have to face.  

[1] Howe, Amy. "Argument analysis: Cautious optimism for challengers in Wisconsin redistricting case?" SCOTUSblog. October 03, 2017. Accessed January 25, 2018.
www.scotusblog.com/2017/10/argument-analysis-cautious-optimism-challengers-wisconsin-redistricting-case/.
  

[2] Lopez, German. "The Supreme Court's big racial gerrymandering decision, explained." Vox. May 22, 2017. Accessed January 26, 2018.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/5/22/15676250/supreme-court-racial-gerrymandering-north-carolina.

[3] Liptak, Adam, and Alan Blinder. "Supreme Court Temporarily Blocks North Carolina Gerrymandering Ruling." The New York Times. January 18, 2018. Accessed January 26, 2018.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/18/us/politics/supreme-court-north-carolina-gerrymandering.html.

[4] Lai, Jonathan, and Liz Navratil. "Pa. Republicans ask U.S. Supreme Court to halt redistricting order." Philly.com. January 25, 2018. Accessed January 26, 2018.
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/politics/state/pa-gerrymandering-case-republicans-ask-scotus-stay-20180125.html.

[5] "Here's how the Supreme Court could decide whether your vote will count." The Washington Post. Accessed January 27, 2018.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/politics/courts-law/gerrymander/?utm_term=.ef9914da257e.

Source: Corey Lowenstein/The News & Observer, via Associated Press


The opinions and views expressed through this publication are the opinions of the designated authors and do not reflect the opinions or views of the Penn Undergraduate Law Journal, our staff, or our clients.

0 Comments

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.


Leave a Reply.


    Categories

    All
    Akshita Tiwary
    Alana Mattei
    Albert Manfredi
    Alexander Saeedy
    Alexandra Aaron
    Alice Giannini
    Alicia Kysar
    Ally Margolis
    Alya Abbassian
    Anika Prakash
    Anna Schwartz
    Ashley Kim
    Astha Pandey
    Benjamin Ng'aru
    Brónach Rafferty
    Bryce Klehm
    Cary Holley
    Christina Gunzenhauser
    Christine Mitchell
    Christopher Brown
    Clarissa Alvarez
    Cole Borlee
    Connor Gallagher
    Dan Spinelli
    Dan Zhang
    Davis Berlind
    Derek Willie
    Edgar Palomino
    Edna Simbi
    Emma Davies
    Esther Lee
    Evelyn Bond
    Filzah Belal
    Frank Geng
    Gabriel Maliha
    Georgia Ray
    Graham Reynolds
    Habib Olapade
    Hailie Goldsmith
    Harshit Rai
    Henry Lininger
    Hetal Doshi
    Iris Zhang
    Irtaza Ali
    Isabela Baghdady
    Ishita Chakrabarty
    Jessica "Lulu" Lipman
    Joe Anderson
    Jonathan Lahdo
    Jonathan Stahl
    Joseph Squillaro
    Justin Yang
    Kaitlyn Rentala
    Katie Kaufman
    Kelly Liang
    Keshav Sharma
    Ketaki Gujar
    Lauren Pak
    Lavi Ben Dor
    Libby Rozbruch
    Lindsey Li
    Luis Bravo
    Lyndsey Reeve
    Madeline Decker
    Maja Cvjetanovic
    Maliha Farrooz
    Marco DiLeonardo
    Margaret Lu
    Matthew Caulfield
    Michael Keshmiri
    Mina Nur Basmaci
    Muskan Mumtaz
    Natalie Peelish
    Natasha Darlington
    Natasha Kang
    Nayeon Kim
    Nicholas Parsons
    Nicholas Williams
    Nicole Greenstein
    Nihal Sahu
    Omar Khoury
    Owen Voutsinas Klose
    Owen Voutsinas-Klose
    Pheby Liu
    Rachel Gu
    Rachel Pomerantz
    Rebecca Heilweil
    Regina Salmons
    Sam Nadler
    Sandeep Suresh
    Sanjay Dureseti
    Sarah Simon
    Saranya Das Sharma
    Saranya Sharma
    Sasha Bryski
    Saxon Bryant
    Sean Foley
    Sebastian Bates
    Shannon Alvino
    Shiven Sharma
    Siddarth Sethi
    Sneha Sharma
    Sophie Lovering
    Steven Jacobson
    Suaida Firoze
    Suprateek Neogi
    Takane Shoji
    Tanner Bowen
    Taryn MacKinney
    Thomas Cribbins
    Todd Costa
    Tyler Larkworthy
    Vatsal Patel
    Vikram Balasubramanian
    Wajeeha Ahmad
    Yeonhwa Lee

    Archives

    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    November 2014
    October 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013

Picture
Picture
​