Top court may be looking at gerrymandering



 

 

State legislatures re-drawing congressional and legislative districts every decade to favor whichever party is in charge at the time has been rampant for years.

For the first time this year, the United States Supreme Court is about to consider whether partisan gerrymandering violates the constitution.

The practice contributes to congressional gridlock. The process tends to draw districts capable of being won by only one party or the other – decided in one or the other party’s primary election – rather than in the general election.

That drives representation to the poles of the political parties – Democrats to the left, and Republicans to the right.

So, finding centrist solutions in Congress is a large problem, and a nightmare for a president trying to represent everyone across the political spectrum.

Former Democratic President Barack Obama said outlawing partisan gerrymandering would be a priority for him after the White House.

His attorney general, Eric Holder, chairs a group pursuing that goal, the National Democratic Redistricting Committee (NDRC).

Republican gerrymandering of Texas’s 36 congressional districts produced 25 represented by Republicans, and 11 by Democrats.

Just one – the sprawling 23rd District, that takes in much of West Texas from San Antonio to El Paso, has been considered a truly swing district in the state.

It is currently represented by Republican Will Hurd of Helotes. In 2014, he won it away from Democratic former state Rep. Pete Gallego of Alpine — who in 2012 had won it away from another Republican, Francisco “Quico” Cansejo.

Gallego attempted to reclaim the district in 2016, but Hurd won — despite Democrat Hillary Clinton leading Republican Donald Trump in the district. Gallego declined to run this year, but several Democrats sought the nomination.

Texas Democrats hope a “Blue Wave” election this year can win Hurd’s district, plus at least the two other congressional districts won by Republicans, but where Clinton narrowly beat Trump.

Those are District 7 in Houston, represented for years by Republican John Culberson, and District 32 in Dallas, represented by Republican Pete Sessions.

The term gerrymandering coined in 1812 in Massachusetts, when Gov. Elbridge Gerry, for political purposes, engineered an odd-shaped legislative district.

An editorial cartoonist said it resembled a salamander, which he dubbed a “Gerrymander” — and a new word was added to the English language.

The Supreme Court in mid-January declined without comment to take up a Texas case alleging partisan gerrymandering. But last year, it heard oral arguments from Wisconsin Democrats in Gill v. Whitford, accusing Republicans of partisan gerrymandering

It also has agreed to hear a case from Maryland Republicans, Benisek v. Lamone, alleging Democratic gerrymandering — scheduled for Tuesday, March 27.

And, Pennsylvania Republicans are trying to appeal a decision from that state’s supreme court. It ruled last month that the state’s congressional districts gerrymandered by Republicans violate the state’s constitution. So, the court drew its own map for 2018 elections.

The state of Texas, under former Atty. Gen. Greg Abbott, in 2013 claimed that Department of Justice (DOJ) charges of discriminatory districting hurting minorities was “baseless.”

“In 2011, both houses of the Texas Legislature were controlled by large Republican majorities, and their redistricting decisions were designed to increase the Republican Party’s electoral prospects at the expense of the Democrats,” the Texas brief said.

“The redistricting decisions of which the DOJ complaints were motivated by partisan rather than racial considerations….”

Got that? The Republican-led legislature was just discriminating against Democrats, not minorities — and it just happens that Hispanic and African-American voters tend to favor Democrats.

Texas Democrats are hoping that the Supreme Court will conclude that partisan discrimination in redistricting is unconstitutional. But they’re also hoping that because of that, Texas will again be subject to having any voting changes scrutinized by the federal government before they go into effect.

Texas used to be among the states subject to the federal Voting Rights Act requirement that any change in voting laws, including legislative and congressional redistricting, be “pre-cleared” by either the federal Department of Justice, or a three-judge federal court in Washington, D.C.

But the high court threw out that requirement in 2013, based on its agreement that the decades-old discriminatory practices that caused states to be subject to pre-clearance were so dated that they were no longer valid.

However, the Democrats are hoping that proving more recent examples of voting discrimination will return Texas to require pre-clearance.

The Supreme Court could announce a decision as early as June. How the court rules has the potential impact of big changes for legislative and congressional districts in some states.

What that might mean for congressional and legislative districts for 2018 elections remains to be seen.

Contact McNeely at davemcneely111@gmail.com or (512) 458-2963.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.