The US Supreme Court just made this map illegal

For our look at gerrymandering



For more videos: 

- The man who rigged America's election maps.

- How Michigan explains American politics.

- How Republicans conquered Florida.

Congressional Maps in Georgia and North Carolina . . .

The one in Georgia has been overturned by a federal district judge.


- NYT: Georgia’s Voting Maps Are Struck Down.

Republicans in Georgia violated a landmark civil rights law in drawing voting maps that diluted the power of Black voters, a federal judge in Atlanta ruled on Thursday, ordering that new maps must be drawn in time for the 2024 elections.


- Politico: North Carolina’s new GOP gerrymander could flip four House seats.

Republicans have pushed through an aggressive gerrymander of North Carolina’s congressional map that will help them flip several seats in Congress. Those looming GOP pickups will bolster the party’s chances of defending their narrow House majority next year by erasing or even surpassing Republican losses elsewhere in the South, where courts have begun tossing out congressional lines for diluting the power of Black voters.


- Democracy Docket: Federal Judge Orders New Congressional and Legislative Maps in Georgia.

This major voting rights victory stems from three lawsuits challenging the Peach State’s congressional and legislative maps: Pendergrass v. Raffensperger (congressional), Grant v. Raffensperger (legislative) and Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity Inc. v. Raffensperger (legislative). After the legislature enacted new maps in 2021, Black voters in Georgia filed lawsuits challenging the state’s congressional and state legislative maps for diluting the voting strength of Black voters and therefore violating Section 2 of the VRA. A trial was held from Sept. 5-14.

Today, a federal judge struck down the maps finding that “In light of this fact and in conjunction with all of the evidence and testimony in this case, the Court determines that Georgia’s congressional and legislative maps violate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and enjoins their use in any future elections.”

To remedy the VRA violations, Georgia must adopt the following districts by Dec. 8:

- One additional majority-Black congressional district in west-metro Atlanta;
- Two additional majority-Black Senate districts in south-metro Atlanta;
- Two additional majority-Black House districts in south-metro Atlanta;
- One additional majority-Black House district in west-metro Atlanta and
- Two additional majority-Black House districts in and around Macon-Bibb.

- National Archives: Comparing Gerrymandered Districts in Georgia and North Carolina.


__________

For background: 

- NYT: Supreme Court Rejects Voting Map That Diluted Black Voters’ Power.

- Scotusblog: Allen v. Milligan.

- Allen v Milligan.

From the NYT: ‘We Must Fight Them’: Trump Goes After Conservatives of Freedom Caucus

Trump has a new enemy.

An example of the relatively new concept of primarying.

- Click here for the article.

President Trump declared war on the conservatives of the House Freedom Caucus on Thursday, suggesting Republicans should “fight them” in the 2018 midterm elections if they do not back his agenda.

“The Freedom Caucus will hurt the entire Republican agenda if they don’t get on the team, & fast,” Mr. Trump said Thursday morning on Twitter, escalating a fight that began when the conservatives from the caucus blocked his Affordable Care Act repeal last Friday.

“We must fight them, & Dems, in 2018!” Mr. Trump wrote, apparently making good on suggestions that he would support Republican challengers to lawmakers in his own party who oppose him, a stance advocated by his chief strategist, Stephen K. Bannon.

Friday’s loss on health care rekindled a long-running civil war between the party’s establishment, represented by Speaker Paul D. Ryan, who drafted the original bill, and anti-establishment conservatives in the caucus, who thought it preserved too many elements of the Obama-era program.

For more:

- House conservatives call Trump an ungrateful bully after threat to unseat them in 2018.
- Trump can’t stop the Freedom Caucus. He has GOP gerrymandering to blame.

From the Washington Post: The Supreme Court will examine partisan gerrymandering in 2017. That could change the voting map.

I mentioned this court case in a few classes, both 2305 and 2306. Partisan gerrymandering is still legal, more or less, but that may well change.

- Click here for the article.

In 2017, the Supreme Court will take up the issue of partisan gerrymandering. Depending on how the court rules, its decisions could have far-reaching implications for the partisan balance in the U.S. House of Representatives and state legislatures — and for the future of redistricting across the country.

Gerrymandering has helped give the Republican Party a significant advantage in Congress. Because Republicans had unified control of twice as many states as Democrats when the last congressional district maps were drawn, estimates suggest that gerrymandering before the 2012 elections cost Democrats between 20 and 41 seats in the House.

Partisan gerrymandering has become the norm in U.S. politics because the Supreme Court has declined to declare it unconstitutional. For three decades, a majority of justices have failed to identify manageable standards to determine when a plan rises to the level of an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander.

As a result, state legislators have come to believe that they can draw partisan gerrymanders so long as long as they satisfy two criteria: They do not violate one-person, one-vote standards and do not reduce the electoral fortunes of African Americans or other protected racial and ethnic groups. As a result, the 2010 round of redistricting saw partisan gerrymandering run amok in some states.

But change may be coming.

Read on.

In the Courts: Whitford v. Gill

I might have to redo my notes on gerrymandering - again.

Racial gerrymandering has been declared unconstitutional because ace is a suspect classification under the equal protection clause. Any attempt to undermine representative strength leads to unequal protection. But party identification is not a suspect classification, so partisan gerrymandering is perfectly fine. Except that it - now - may violate the principle of "one person one vote" since the ability of the party in a legislature to minimize the power of the minority has been greatly enhanced by new technologies.

The courts are being presented with an argument that an "efficiency gap" can be used to determine if the votes of the minority party have been excessively lessened. Partisan gerrymandering can occur when greater numbers of one party are placed in a smaller number of districts, meaning that more of their votes are "wasted" than those of the other party.

For a quick review, click here: Why the Ruling Against Wisconsin’s Gerrymander Could Change Redistricting in America.

The courts have struck down race-based gerrymanders as a violation of equal protection—but until now, they have consistently held that nakedly partisan gerrymanders do not by themselves pose a resolvable constitutional problem. That’s because of a muddled Supreme Court decision in 2004 called Vieth v. Jubelirer. In Vieth, five justices agreed that partisan gerrymanders are likely unconstitutional. But Justice Kennedy refused to actually strike them down. Kennedy wrote that extreme gerrymanders may unconstitutionally burden the “representational rights of voters,” but that there was not yet any “manageable standard” by which to assess whether a gerrymander ran afoul of the Constitution. He hoped such a standard might “emerge in the future,” leaving the door open to a future challenge.

That standard appears to have emerged. In an opinion written by Judge Kenneth Ripple, a Reagan appointee, the federal district court concluded that Wisconsin’s gerrymander violated voters’ right to freedom of association and equal protection under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The Constitution prohibits a redistricting scheme, Ripple wrote, when it is intended to impede the effectiveness of a citizen’s vote based on her political affiliation; does, in practice, dilute that vote; and cannot be justified on other legitimate grounds.

How can courts determine whether a gerrymander excessively dilutes votes? Simple, Ripple explained: They can use a mathematical formula called the efficiency gap. As the New York Times explains it: The formula divides the difference between the two parties’ “wasted votes”—votes beyond those needed by a winning side, and votes cast by a losing side—by the total number of votes cast. When both parties waste the same number of votes, the result is zero—an ideal solution. But as a winning party wastes fewer and fewer votes than its opponent, its score rises.

A fair redistricting scheme will create few wasted votes and thus an efficiency gap near zero. The more partisan the gerrymander, the higher the efficiency gap; a review of gerrymanders over the last four decades revealed that an efficiency gap of 7 percent will entrench the majority until new districts are drawn. The current Wisconsin gerrymander results in an efficiency gap of up to 13 percent.

For more:

- The Campaign Legal Center: Whitford v. Gill.
- Brennan Center for Justice: Whitford v. Gill.
- Modern Democracy: Today, I’m Thankful for: Whitford v. Gill.
- The New York Review of Books: American Democracy Betrayed.
- The decision from the U.S. District Court: Whitford v. Gill.

From the Washington Post: How incumbency, not gerrymandering, may protect the Republican House majority

While the chances that Democrats win the majority of House seats has increased, it's still unlikely./

Here's analysis.

- Click here for the story.

As we enter the final stretch of the 2016 campaign, Donald Trump’s struggles have led to speculation about serious consequences for House and Senate Republicans. Some are even suggesting that control of the House is up for grabs.

The counterargument, however, is that House Republicans are protected by the Republican-led gerrymandering after the 2010 Census. As the story goes, this redistricting simultaneously increased the size of the Republican House majority and made those districts incredibly safe for the GOP legislators who represent them.

But how much is gerrymandering really helping House Republicans? My analysis suggests only a little bit. Incumbency appears to be the more important factor.

From the Austin American Statesman: Why only 1 Texas congressional race is competitive

Texas does gerrymandering right.

And despite all this talk of kicking the bums out, it seems we are completely happy with the bum we have.

- Click here for the article.

Texas has 36 congressional districts, second only to California, but only one seat appears to be competitive heading into early voting next week — District 23, a vast West Texas seat that has switched between Republican and Democratic hands in each of the last three elections.

Elsewhere, 23 Republicans and 10 Democrats are likely to win re-election, by dint of gerrymandering and the power of incumbency. Only two Texas districts are open seats — District 15, a predominantly Hispanic and Democratic-leaning district in South Texas, and District 19, a largely rural and heavily Republican district in parts of West Texas and the Panhandle where no Democrat is on the ballot.

In Central Texas, all six members of Congress who represent a slice of Austin are sitting on large war chests but running light campaigns. Each Austin incumbent had more than $200,000 on hand as of Sept. 30, with Democrat Lloyd Doggett topping the list with more than $3 million on hand. No challenger in those races has more than $30,000, and many have no money on hand.

“We know for a fact incumbency is powerful,” said Chad Long, an associate professor of political science at St. Edward’s University. “It’s the single most powerful predictor of congressional elections, even more than the money. If you have an incumbent in the election, you pretty much know who’s going to win.”

According to Long, a district is considered competitive when the winning candidate garners no more than 55 percent of the vote. Under this definition, only two of the six U.S. House members representing the Austin area have ever experienced a competitive race — Doggett and Republican Michael McCaul.

From the Austin American-Statesman: Why only 1 Texas congressional race is competitive

Texas does gerrymandering right.

And despite all the talk of throwing the bums out - we keep them in. All the other guys are bum,s apparently, our's is perfectly fine.

- Click here for the article.

Texas has 36 congressional districts, second only to California, but only one seat appears to be competitive heading into early voting next week — District 23, a vast West Texas seat that has switched between Republican and Democratic hands in each of the last three elections.

Elsewhere, 23 Republicans and 10 Democrats are likely to win re-election, by dint of gerrymandering and the power of incumbency. Only two Texas districts are open seats — District 15, a predominantly Hispanic and Democratic-leaning district in South Texas, and District 19, a largely rural and heavily Republican district in parts of West Texas and the Panhandle where no Democrat is on the ballot.

In Central Texas, all six members of Congress who represent a slice of Austin are sitting on large war chests but running light campaigns. Each Austin incumbent had more than $200,000 on hand as of Sept. 30, with Democrat Lloyd Doggett topping the list with more than $3 million on hand. No challenger in those races has more than $30,000, and many have no money on hand.

“We know for a fact incumbency is powerful,” said Chad Long, an associate professor of political science at St. Edward’s University. “It’s the single most powerful predictor of congressional elections, even more than the money. If you have an incumbent in the election, you pretty much know who’s going to win.”

- Click here for the 2016 Texas Primary results.
- Click here for the general election races.

From Politico: Obama, Holder to lead post-Trump redistricting campaign The former attorney general heads up a new Democratic effort to challenge the GOP's supremacy in state legislatures and the U.S. House.

We are two years away from the next census - which apportions House seats to the states - and six year away from the next redistricting, which will be done by state legislatures. Democrats seek to undo what Republicans were able to accomplish the last go around.

- Click here for the article.

As Democrats aim to capitalize on this year’s Republican turmoil and start building back their own decimated bench, former Attorney General Eric Holder will chair a new umbrella group focused on redistricting reform—with the aim of taking on the gerrymandering that’s left the party behind in statehouses and made winning a House majority far more difficult.

The new group, called the National Democratic Redistricting Committee, was developed in close consultation with the White House. President Barack Obama himself has now identified the group—which will coordinate campaign strategy, direct fundraising, organize ballot initiatives and put together legal challenges to state redistricting maps—as the main focus of his political activity once he leaves office.

Though initial plans to be active in this year’s elections fell short, the group has been incorporated as a 527, with Democratic Governors Association executive director Elizabeth Pearson as its president and House Majority PAC executive director Ali Lapp as its vice president. They’ve been pitching donors and aiming to put together its first phase action plan for December, moving first in the Virginia and New Jersey state elections next year and with an eye toward coordination across gubernatorial, state legislative and House races going into the 2018 midterms.

“American voters deserve fair maps that represent our diverse communities—and we need a coordinated strategy to make that happen,” Holder said. “This unprecedented new effort will ensure Democrats have a seat at the table to create fairer maps after 2020."

Obama strongly endorsed Holder’s selection, and is planning more involvement in state races this year. But it’s in his post-presidency that redistricting will be a priority for his fundraising and campaigning.

“Where he will be most politically engaged will be at the state legislative level, with an eye on redistricting after 2020,” said White House political director David Simas, who’s been briefing Obama on the group’s progress since it started coming together at the beginning of the summer.

The group’s incorporation follows a pitch made to major donors in Philadelphia during the Democratic convention in July, led by Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe and Connecticut Gov. Dannel Malloy, along with House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee chair Rep. Ben Ray Luján. The group hasn’t filed any financial reports as of yet and isn’t releasing figures for money raised, but operatives say that several organizations have donated initial funds in its early stages of fundraising.

From Vox: A Trump collapse could give Democrats back the House. Here’s the math.

This is what Paul Ryan is worried about.

- Click here for a look at the current breakdown in the House.

- Click here for the article.

If this new tape has a similar effect, Clinton could obviously expect an easy victory. But that kind of Trumpian meltdown would also give Democrats a chance to reclaim a prize that has long looked far out of reach — the House of Representatives.

The House has long looked like impossible to flip because gerrymandering has given Republicans a fortress of extraordinarily safe seats. (In 2012, for instance, Democratic House candidates won 1.7 million more votes than their Republican foes — and still ended up with 33 fewer members of the House.) Democrats need to win 30 Republican-held seats to flip the House, and are widely expected to nab closer to 15.

But one political analyst I interviewed earlier this campaign thinks an epic Trump collapse might be enough to overcome that built-in advantage. Geoffrey Skelley, of the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics, argues that a Clinton victory of 6 points or more might be enough to put the House back in play.

Right now, the polling averages suggest Clinton is running around 5 points ahead of Trump. If she can use this Trump implosion to further increase her national lead, at least according to Skelley’s projections, she may give down-ballot Democratic allies a real chance at reclaiming Congress. And that would have huge consequences for the next two years of American government.

Projection: A 6-point Clinton victory would put 50 Republican-held House seats in play

Skelley’s math is rooted in a simple fact: If the Democratic presidential nominee wins a House district, the Democratic congressional candidate also probably wins that House seat.

This is not an ironclad rule, but it’s a pretty good indicator — in 2012, only 6 percent of districts that voted for Barack Obama voted a Republican into the House.

This is the key to understanding why Skelley thinks a 6-point Clinton win could put the House in play. That kind of national victory would likely mean 50 House districts currently controlled by Republicans would vote for Clinton — therefore suggesting they have a good shot of also going blue at the House level.

For more on the subject:

- The Odds of a Democratic Sweep Next Month Are Small But Rising.
- The House May Be in Play.
- Why It’s Impossible for Democrats to Win the House.

Why vote? Maybe there's no need.

Some Texas Races Decided Before Voters Hit Polls.

We are just one week away from Super Tuesday but before a single ballot is counted in the March 1st Primary, we already know who some of the winners will be in November.

There are 16 seats up for grabs in the State Senate in the 2016 election. If you look at the list of Republican and Democratic candidates, 12 of these elections are one party races—meaning there are only Republicans or Democrats in the running.

Nine of the State Senate elections are one-person races—meaning there is only one candidate in the running.
According to their party’s websites, the Libertarian and Green Parties will challenge six of those seats in the general election but that still leaves three State Senators who are set to win the election by default.

It is still possible for other third party independent candidates to join the statewide races before the November election, but it’s difficult to win as an independent, especially when a candidate joins this late in the game.

The primaries narrow the list of candidates to determine who the Republican and Democratic nominees will be, but in many races, primary voters will only have one option within their party.

Between the State House and Senate Races, 47 percent of the Republican candidates will run unopposed in the primary election. The same goes for 45 percent of the Democratic candidates— they face no inner-party competition.

Some candidates will go completely unchallenged, with no bipartisan competition in the general election.

Of the 150 seats in the Texas House of Representatives, 48 candidates are set to run unopposed in both the primaries and that general election—that’s including competition from the Libertarian and Green parties.

In total, with the 48 seats in the State House and three senate seats, that’s more than 30 percent of state legislature who are set to get elected not by voters, but by default.

Political consultant David Butts said some argue this is not what a democracy should look like. “It’s more a ‘dollar-ocracy.’ It’s money basically controlling that system,” Butts said.

65 percent of all the elections in the state senate and house are one-party races and with only Republicans or only Democrats in the running, that means the winners will likely be determined in the primaries.

“Why spend money in a race when there is no chance of you winning?” Butts said, “Even if you spent $1 million in some of these seats, you couldn’t win.”

He said gerrymandering has become a “very refined art,” not just in Texas, but all across the U.S. “There is just no reason for running in them, they are either so Democratic or so Republican that no one can challenge them,” said Butts.

A political consultant with more than 30 years of experience in Texas politics, Butts said It’s not worth the opposing party’s time or money to enter a candidate in a race—especially when the dominate party has an incumbent in the running.

“You’re more likely to get struck my lightening then get one of those seats,” Butts said. “This is a numbers game, it’s math—you realize that the odds of you winning are very, very remote.”

The state’s voting districts were last drawn in 2011 by the Republican controlled legislature.

“Democrats do it, Republicans to do it and that leads to sort of a one party system that develops out of that,” Butts said, “The problem is that you have very few districts where you have a real contest.”

If election season is the time for voters to make their voices heard, Butts said a lack of competition gives them little say.

From the Texas Tribune: Analysis: A Peculiar Way to Disenfranchise Voters

Rapid turnover undermines the ability of a district to get a representative that has enough seniority to become powerful. Is this intentional?

- Click here for the story.

Texas lawmakers have designed a congressional district that is so slippery that neither political party can hang onto it, and where it is impossible for anyone to stay in office long enough to build up enough clout to get much of anything done for the folks at home.

You will get an argument about that from the people who have held the seat. Will Hurd, Pete Gallego, Francisco "Quico" Canseco, Ciro Rodriguez and Henry Bonilla will all say, in one way or another, that they have been effective representatives for the people who sent them to Washington, D.C.

Bonilla, a Republican, was there for 14 years. Rodriguez, a Democrat, was there for four, but served in Congress for eight more years representing another district — another redistricting tale for another day.

. . . Kevin Brady, a Republican from The Woodlands who served in the Texas Legislature with Rodriguez and Gallego back in the day, was elected to Congress in 1996. He is now poised to become the chairman of the powerful tax-writing Ways & Means Committee.

Midland Republican Michael Conaway was elected to Congress in 2004, and he’s chairman of the House Agriculture Committee. Jeb Hensarling, R-Dallas, went to Washington after the 2002 elections and chairs the Financial Services Committee. Michael McCaul, R-Austin, who was first elected in 2004, chairs the Homeland Security Committee. Pete Sessions, R-Dallas, who heads the Rules Committee, he joined Congress in 1997.

First thing to notice there is that you have to be a Republican to have a chairmanship in the current Congress. But the second is that nobody from the 23rd congressional district has had a chance to stay long enough to get into the line, even for the top minority positions. And their voters, it follows, have that much less power in Washington than other Texans from more stable districts.

From the San Antonio Express-News: U.S. Court panel says redistricting maps will stay the same for 2016 election

Texas' house maps - drawn in 2013 - are being challenged in the federal courts. Minority groups argue that the districts are drawn to diminish their voting strength, which would be a violation of the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause. The paper reports that the panel of judges that are reviewing the accusation will allow the 2016 elections to be competed on the basis of those districts. This does not mean that they will not ultimately rule that the districts are unconstitutional.

- Click here for the story.

A three-judge panel in San Antonio on Friday rejected a motion to temporarily block a set of redistricting maps passed by the Legislature in 2013 for Congress and the Texas House. Litigation on the maps remains pending, as civil rights groups claim they discriminate against minorities. The three-judge panel said it has not reached a final decision and that the current boundaries are being “used on an interim basis only.”

However, the court made clear it has no intention to tweak the maps before the upcoming March primaries — a move that will avoid a repeat of 2012 when redistricting map litigation threw the election cycle into disarray and caused the primaries to be delayed from March to May. The ruling eases fears of Texas getting bumped from the "Super Tuesday" slate of March primaries. “The 2016 elections will proceed as scheduled, without interruption or delay,” the court wrote.

Roll Call reports that similar accusations are being made for the maps in five other states:

- 5 Congressional Maps That Redistricting Could Change for 2016.

Governing Magazine points out how these disputes will impact the 2016 election nationally. Two states - at least - already have to redraw their districts:

- How the Never-Ending Battle of Redistricting Will Impact 2016.

From the Washington Post: America’s most gerrymandered congressional districts

This is relevant in light of the recent decision finding independent redistricting commissions constitutional. They are designed to prevent districts like these above.

- Click here for the article.

The Supreme Court rules that independent redistricting boards are constitutional

The case is Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission. It's another 5-4 ideological vote with Anthony Kennedy as the tie breaker.

For more:

ScotusBlog: Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission.
Oyez: Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission.

We spent some time on this case in the spring when it was argued because it allowed us to look at the elections clause of the constitution as well as investigate what the word "legislature" could possibly mean. Such commissions allow a non-partisan group to draw congressional district, which makes them more competitive since there is no stake in the outcome. The majority party in state legislatures has an incentive to pad its lead over the minority party and tends to draw districts that are not competitive, This tends to suppress voter turnout since there's little need to show up in general elections.

Here are the facts of the case from Oyez:

Until 2000, the Arizona State Constitution granted the State Legislature the ability to draw congressional districts, subject to the possibility of a gubernatorial veto. In 2000, the Arizona voters passed Proposition 106, which amended the state constitution to remove the congressional redistricting power from the legislature and vest it in the newly created Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (IRC).

In 2012, after the IRC approved a new congressional district map, the legislature sued the IRC and argued that Proposition 106 violated the Elections Clause of the federal Constitution (Art I, Sec. 4, Clause 1)--which declares that "The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof...."--removed redistricting authority from the legislature and therefore that the new district map was unconstitutional and void. The legislature also requested that the district court permanently enjoin the IRC from adopting, implementing, or enforcing the new congressional district map. The district court held that Proposition 106 did not violate the Elections Clause of the federal Constitution.

And the question posed to the court:

Did Proposition 106 violate the Elections Clause of the federal Constitution by removing the congressional districting power from the state legislature?

- Click here for the decision.

From Vox: Virginia's congressional map has been thrown out by judges for racial bias

OK - one more post about the courts and racial gerrymandering. Vox reports on another case that might well end up in the Supreme Court.

- Click here for the article.

On Friday, a federal court panel reaffirmed an earlier decision throwing out Virginia's map of congressional districts, due to unconstitutional racial gerrymandering.

The panel found that one district, the third, was unconstitutionally racially gerrymandered in violation of the Equal Protection Clause. "Individuals in the Third Congressional District whose constitutional rights have been injured by improper racial gerrymandering have suffered significant harm," a two-judge majority of the panel wrote.

Virginia is widely believed to be one of the most gerrymandered states in the country. In 2012, Republican House candidates won just 51 percent of the votes cast in the state — but they ended up winning eight of the state's 11 congressional districts.

The last sentence in a nutshell explains why gerrymandering happens. It allows a narrow majority to become a super-majority.

Gerrymandering in Texas

We are experts of the art. The current map for congressional seats was designed to crack both the Hispanic / Democratic vote in South Texas, and the Democrats in Austin. Notice that Austin does not have a single representative. Instead, the city is divided into five separate U.S. House districts.

But according to Vox, Texas is not in the top 5 of gerrymandered states.

Examples of packed and cracked districts

Notice that the location of each voter does not matter. What matters is how each district is drawn. Representation varies depending on how the districts are drawn, meaning that power belongs to whoever draws the districts.

- Click here for the source.

It provides great background on gerrymandering overall.

For more on the subject you may also want to read through this: Gerrymandering Explained.

The Supreme Court rules that Alabama drew legislative districts in order to restrict black representation.

This was the result in two related cases:

- ScotusBlog: Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama.
- ScotusBlog: Alabama Democratic Conference v. Alabama.
- Oyez Project: Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama.

The court ruled - by a 5-4 vote - that the state was guilty of racial gerrymandering - more specifically a tactic known as packing. By successfully packing members of a group in a small number of districts, then the voting strength of that group is minimized. If that group happens to be a racial group - especially a racial minority - that violates both the 14th and 15th Amendments as well as the Voting Rights Act. The problem is that proving racial gerrymandering can be difficult to do. The court's majority ruled that racial gerrymandering should be considered on a district by district method - taking each individually - rather than statewide, which is what a lower court had ruled.

For analysis from smarter people than me:

- Supreme Court sends Alabama redistricting plan back to lower court.
- Opinion analysis: A small victory for minority voters, or a case with “profound” constitutional implications?

For students who are focusing on this case, you may wish to consider the following topics, even if you aren't writing about this case, you should be familiar with the following as they arise in different contexts in both 2305 and 2306.

- Gerrymandering: An attempt to draw an electoral district for political advantage.

- Racial Gerrymandering: An attempt to draw electoral districts to impact - favorably or negatively - the strength of a racial group. This is unconstitutional since race is a suspect classification under the equal protection clause. Since parties are not a protected classification, partisan gerrymandering is not illegal, but since party identification increasingly varies based on race, it can be difficult to distinguish between the two.

- Packing and Cracking: These are the names of two gerrymandering techniques. Packing refers to when members of a group are packed into a small number of districts so that their competitiveness elsewhere is minimized. Cracking refers to when the members are spread out to a number of districts so that the group is not a majority in any district.

- 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause: Added to the Constitution after the Civil War, clause prevented states from treating persons in their jurisdiction unequally, though it does not define "equality." 

- 15th Amendment: For the first time - again just after the Civil War - the Constitution negated the ability of states to deny the right to vote to people on the basis of race, among other things.

- Reynolds v Sims: The 1964 Supreme Court case that mandated that state legislative districts had to be roughly equal in population.  

- Voting Rights Act: An act Congress passed in 1965 to strengthen the voting rights of minority groups primarily in the South by outlawing tactics that had minimized their ability to vote, as well as the impact of their votes. It also established agencies that could enforce the law. It also mandated that states with a history of racial discrimination had to have changes in their elections, as well as districts, pre-cleared by a panel of federal judges or the Justice Department. 

- Shelby County v Holder: A 2013 Supreme Court case which limited the Voting Rights Act by arguing that throwing out the map that had been used  to determine which states were subject to pre-clearance.

Do Republicans have an electoral advantage in US House elections?

The same people that argue that Democrats may have a lock on the White House in the near future argue that Republicans may have a similar lock on the United States House of Representatives.

The traditional culprit is gerrymandering. Republicans did very well in the 2010 election and won a number of state legislatures. This allowed them greater control of redistricting than Democrats. The resulting districts spread Republican voters among a larger number of districts and packed Democrats in fewer. Thus the advantage.

On analysis pointed out that Democratic candidates for House seats in the 2012 election received more than a million votes than Republican candidates, but Republicans won 33 more seats.

- Click here for the numbers.

For detail click on these:

- GOP Has A Built-In Advantage In Fight For The US House.
- The Enduring Republican Grip on the House.
- GOP Has Built-in Advantage In Fight For The House.
- Just how strong are the GOP's gerrymanders? Daily Kos Elections' median district scores explain.