The court again considered whether partisan gerrymandering is unconstitutional.
The cases are Rucho v. Common Cause, and Lamone v. Benisek.
- Click here for the article.
The Supreme Court returned to the subject of partisan gerrymandering on Tuesday, appearing largely divided along ideological lines as it considered for a second time in two years whether drawing election maps to help the party in power ever violates the Constitution.
Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, the court’s newest member and the one who may possess the decisive vote, expressed uneasiness about the practice.
“Extreme partisan gerrymandering is a real problem for our democracy,” he said. “I’m not going to dispute that.”
He added, though, that recent developments around the nation — including state ballot initiatives establishing independent redistricting commissions, proposed legislation in Congress and State Supreme Court rulings — may make action from the United States Supreme Court less necessary.
Have we really reached the moment, even though it would be a big lift for this court to get involved, where the other actors can’t do it?” he asked.
Much could hang on Justice Kavanaugh’s opinion: A ruling that limited partisan gerrymandering could transform American politics, reshaping House maps in several states, often but not always to the benefit of Democrats.
Justice Kavanaugh was an exceptionally active participant in Tuesday’s arguments, asking probing questions of both sides and displaying particularly detailed familiarity with the geography and voting districts of Maryland, his home state. But his record as an appeals court judge provides few hints about how he will approach the issue.
The other justices seemed largely split along the usual lines, with the more conservative ones wary of announcing constitutional limits on partisan gerrymandering and the more liberal ones prepared to try.
There was certainly no consensus on how to fashion a legal standard that would separate acceptable partisanship from the kind that is unconstitutional. Justice Stephen G. Breyer proposed a numerical test, but it did not seem to gain traction with his colleagues.
For More:
- Supreme Court weighs crackdown on gerrymandering.
- Proportionality and the Oral Arguments.
