This Week Saw Major Blows to Gerrymandering. The Supreme Court Could Undo It All.

With Justice Kavanaugh, the conservative court could make it much harder for states and voters to fight gerrymandering.

Voters in Michigan, one of the most gerrymandered states in the country, voted on Tuesday to create an independent redistricting commission.Todd McInturf/Detroit News/AP

Let our journalists help you make sense of the noise: Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter and get a recap of news that matters.

The past two days have seen major victories in the battle against gerrymandering, which warps the political process by allowing politicians to choose their voters, rather than the other way around. But the Supreme Court, now with conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh aboard, could undo this progress—and make it impossible to curtail congressional gerrymandering going forward.

On Tuesday, voters in three states passed ballot initiatives to combat gerrymandering by handing the job of drawing political maps to nonpartisan commissions. Colorado, Missouri, and Michigan voted overwhelmingly to end partisan gerrymandering by taking the map-drawing power away from the state legislatures. In Utah, a ballot measure to create an independent redistricting commission leads as the votes continue to be counted.

On Wednesday, gerrymandering suffered another blow. A panel of three federal judges struck down Maryland’s 6th Congressional District as an unconstitutional gerrymander. Maryland was led by Democrats when it redrew its maps after the 2010 census to bolster the party’s majority, at a time when Republicans had just taken over a majority of state governments and instituted extreme GOP-friendly gerrymanders. The case, along with one over North Carolina’s Republican gerrymander, will now be heard by the Supreme Court.

For years, opponents of gerrymandering have tried to persuade the nation’s highest court to limit gerrymandering on the basis of voters’ political affiliations. In the court’s last term, advocates, voters, and local lawmakers appealed numerous cases to the Supreme Court, hoping that swingJustice Anthony Kennedy would provide the key vote to overturn the country’s most extreme gerrymanders. But shortly before his retirement in June, Kennedy passed up the chance to rein in gerrymandering on three cases, all of which the Supreme Court sent back to lower courts. Now, with Kavanaugh in Kennedy’s seat, the Supreme Court is even less likely to curb gerrymandering. In fact, there’s a real possibility that it will undo not only Wednesday’s decision in Maryland, but also the progress made at the polls on Tuesday.

Voters expressed their frustration with gerrymandering by handing the map-drawing process to nonpartisan commissions, but the conservatives on the Supreme Court have shown a willingness to strike down such commissions as unconstitutional. If Kavanaugh, who’s expected to be a reliably conservative justice, agrees, he would provide a fifth vote to end most nonpartisan commissions, leaving voters no recourse to overcome extreme gerrymanders. 

In 2015, Republican lawmakers in Arizona challenged the creation of an independent redistricting commission, which Arizona voters had approved as a ballot measure back in 2000. The lawmakers argued that the independent commission violated the US Constitution, which gives the state legislature the authority to set the “Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives.” Kennedy joined the liberal justices in backing the commission. The majority opinion, written by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, argued that the term “Legislature” in the Constitution should be widely interpreted to mean the legislative process, which in Arizona includes ballot initiatives. 

But the court’s conservatives, led by Chief Justice John Roberts, vociferously dissented. Roberts argued that only the legislature could draw congressional districts. Now, he may have a fifth vote to overturn the Arizona case and invalidate all other congressional redistricting commissions created through ballot initiatives—including those passed this week. As election law expert Rick Hasen warned recently in a Harvard Law Review blog post, the conservatives on the court could go even further and interpret the Constitution as banning state courts from throwing out gerrymanders under their states’ constitutions, as happened in Pennsylvania this year.

Despite Democrats’ success in taking control of the House of Representatives this year, gerrymandering severely limited those gains. In North Carolina, for example, Democrats won 50.3 percent of the statewide vote, but they’ll control just three of the state’s 13 congressional seats. 

Tuesday’s elections and Wednesday’s court decision show that both voters and judges are fed up with partisan gerrymandering. But the Supreme Court is leaning in the opposite direction, and the most extreme gerrymandering may be yet to come. 

IT'S NOT THAT WE'RE SCREWED WITHOUT TRUMP:

"It's that we're screwed with or without him if we can't show the public that what we do matters for the long term," writes Mother Jones CEO Monika Bauerlein as she kicks off our drive to raise $350,000 in donations from readers by July 17.

This is a big one for us. It's our first time asking for an outpouring of support since screams of FAKE NEWS and so much of what Trump stood for made everything we do so visceral. Like most newsrooms, we face incredibly hard budget realities, and it's unnerving needing to raise big money when traffic is down.

So, as we ask you to consider supporting our team's journalism, we thought we'd slow down and check in about where Mother Jones is and where we're going after the chaotic last several years. This comparatively slow moment is also an urgent one for Mother Jones: You can read more in "Slow News Is Good News," and if you're able to, please support our team's hard-hitting journalism and help us reach our big $350,000 goal with a donation today.

payment methods

IT'S NOT THAT WE'RE SCREWED WITHOUT TRUMP:

"It's that we're screwed with or without him if we can't show the public that what we do matters for the long term," writes Mother Jones CEO Monika Bauerlein as she kicks off our drive to raise $350,000 in donations from readers by July 17.

This is a big one for us. So, as we ask you to consider supporting our team's journalism, we thought we'd slow down and check in about where Mother Jones is and where we're going after the chaotic last several years. This comparatively slow moment is also an urgent one for Mother Jones: You can read more in "Slow News Is Good News," and if you're able to, please support our team's hard-hitting journalism and help us reach our big $350,000 goal with a donation today.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate