Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

babylonsister

(171,056 posts)
Mon Jun 5, 2017, 05:26 PM Jun 2017

The Supreme Court just made it easier to get away with gerrymandering

https://thinkprogress.org/supreme-court-easier-gerrymandering-e6c986056e62

Ian Millhiser
Jun 5
The Supreme Court just made it easier to get away with gerrymandering
If you can’t fix the problem quickly, it’s not fixed.


The Supreme Court handed down a brief order on Monday affirming a lower court’s ruling that North Carolina’s state legislative maps were an illegal racial gerrymander.

That sounds like good news for advocates who oppose the maps drawn by the Republican-controlled legislature — but the decision could actually encourage state lawmakers to attempt more gerrymandered maps in the future.

That’s because the most lasting effect of the Court’s decision in North Carolina v. Covington is likely to stem from a brief opinion vacating a lower court order that called for an unusual remedy to fix this gerrymander.

The lower court did not simply strike down the state’s legislative maps. It also ordered the state to draw new maps and hold a special election in 2017 to replace lawmakers elected under the illegal gerrymander.

snip//

“Although this Court has never addressed whether or when a special election may be a proper remedy for a racial gerrymander,” the Supreme Court’s opinion continues, “obvious considerations include the severity and nature of the particular constitutional violation, the extent of the likely disruption to the ordinary processes of governance if early elections are imposed, and the need to act with proper judicial restraint when intruding on state sovereignty.”

Again, this language does not foreclose lower courts from ordering a special election, but it is likely to deter them from doing so. There were no noted dissents from the Supreme Court’s opinion in Covington. That’s how the justices communicate to other judges that they were annoyed with the lower court’s actions in this case.

Whether the justices intended it to or not, however, Covington will also send a clear message to lawmakers engaged in gerrymandering. North Carolina’s maps are illegal. The Supreme Court agreed with that conclusion. And yet North Carolina still got to run several elections under those maps.

That’s a pretty substantial incentive for lawmakers to draw more gerrymandered maps in the future.
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»The Supreme Court just ma...