State judges have been throwing out congressional maps they call partisan gerrymanders, in a sign of the effects of a 2019 Supreme Court ruling that pushed the issue below the federal level.
-
Send any friend a story
As a subscriber, you have 10 gift articles to give each month. Anyone can read what you share.
Give this article
- Read in app
In 2019, the Supreme Court ruled that federal courts are powerless to hear challenges to partisan gerrymandering.
State courts in both Democratic and Republican states have been aggressively striking down gerrymandered political maps, as this year’s redistricting fights drag on and begin to create chaos in upcoming primary elections.
In Maryland, a state judge last week threw out a congressional map drawn by Democrats, citing an “extreme gerrymander.” In North Carolina, the State Supreme Court in February struck down maps drawn by Republicans. And in New York, a state judge ruled on Thursday that a map drawn by Democrats had been “unconstitutionally drawn with political bias.”
The flood of rulings reflects an emerging reality: that state courts, rather than federal ones, have become a primary firewall against gerrymandering as both Democrats and Republicans try to carve out maximum advantages in the maps they control. The parties have been emboldened to do so by a 2019 Supreme Court decision that federal courts cannot hear challenges to partisan gerrymandering, though they can still hear challenges to racial gerrymandering.
At the same time, however, state judges in at least five states — many, though not all, from the opposing party of the one that drew the districts — have slapped down contorted maps as illegal partisan gerrymanders.
“There’s a fire, and at least some people are holding the hose,” said Chad Dunn, an elections lawyer who has represented Democrats in redistricting cases.
Many appeals and final decisions remain, but for now the flurry of court decisions leaves the redistricting cycle roughly where it has stood for weeks: in a surprising draw.
Neither Republicans nor Democrats have gained a distinct advantage through the once-in-a-decade process in which state legislatures draw maps and the parties’ allies fight over them in the courts. This cycle has not proved to be the nightmare many Democrats had feared, but the recent court decisions have slowed their attempt to claw back to a more even map through aggressive gerrymandering of their own.
What to Know About Redistricting
- Redistricting, Explained: Here are some answers to your most pressing questions about the process that is reshaping American politics.
- Understand Gerrymandering: Can you gerrymander your party to power? Try to draw your own districts in this imaginary state.
- Analysis: For years, the congressional map favored Republicans over Democrats. But in 2022, the map is poised to be surprisingly fair.
- Killing Competition: The number of competitive districts is dropping, as both parties use redistricting to draw themselves into safe seats.
The legal back and forth has also left some states’ maps in limbo relatively late in the primary calendar, creating confusion in states like North Carolina and Maryland that have had to delay primary elections. Delays resulting from legal challenges are common in redistricting cycles, but the process is occurring especially late this year because the pandemic significantly delayed census results and slowed the start of redistricting.
In states like New York and North Carolina, the judge or justices striking down a party’s maps have come from the other party.
“It’s clearly a factor, and although I don’t want to call the courts partisan, judges matter,” said Michael Li, a redistricting expert at the Brennan Center for Justice. He added that judges who were willing to hear such cases, and decide them favorably for the challenger, often “happened to be the opposite party of the party that drew the maps.”
But in other cases, judges have defied political expectations.
Narrowly divided state supreme courts in Ohio and Wisconsin that are controlled by conservatives have sided with Democratic maps — though in each case the court has a swing justice who often sides with liberal members. And in Wisconsin, the State Supreme Court’s choice of a map drawn by Gov. Tony Evers, a Democrat, was later overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court.
ImageGov. Larry Hogan of Maryland, a Republican, has tangled with Democrats in the state over its congressional maps. Last week, a state judge struck down a map drawn by Democrats.Credit…Brian Witte/Associated Press
In Maryland, an aggressive map drawn by Democrats was invalidated last week by a state court judge, Lynne Battaglia, who served as chief of staff to former Senator Barbara A. Mikulski, a five-term Democrat from Maryland who was appointed as the state’s U.S. attorney by President Bill Clinton.
Doug Mayer, the president of Fair Maps Maryland, the organization aligned with Gov. Larry Hogan, a Republican, that challenged the state’s maps, said that he had been told by his lawyers not to say anything in public about Judge Battaglia’s politics and that “I’m very glad I did.” Gerrymandering, Mr. Mayer said, should be a practice both major parties agree to eliminate.
“I think gerrymandering is voter suppression no matter who does it,” Mr. Mayer said. “Republicans who do it in Texas and North Carolina are just as bad as the S.O.B.s up here. More people need to say that.”
The Supreme Court this year has made inconsistent rulings about whether lower courts can order legislatures back to the drawing board.
In February, the justices reinstated an Alabama congressional map after a lower court had ordered the Republican-controlled state to draw a second Black-majority district. But in March, the Supreme Court invalidated a Wisconsin congressional map drawn by the state’s Democratic governor and ordered a new one to be produced.
How U.S. Redistricting Works
Card 1 of 8
What is redistricting? It’s the redrawing of the boundaries of congressional and state legislative districts. It happens every 10 years, after the census, to reflect changes in population.
Why is it important this year? With an extremely slim Democratic margin in the House of Representatives, simply redrawing maps in a few key states could determine control of Congress in 2022.
How does it work? The census dictates how many seats in Congress each state will get. Mapmakers then work to ensure that a state’s districts all have roughly the same number of residents, to ensure equal representation in the House.
Who draws the new maps? Each state has its own process. Eleven states leave the mapmaking to an outside panel. But most — 39 states — have state lawmakers draw the new maps for Congress.
If state legislators can draw their own districts, won’t they be biased? Yes. Partisan mapmakers often move district lines — subtly or egregiously — to cluster voters in a way that advances a political goal. This is called gerrymandering.
What is gerrymandering? It refers to the intentional distortion of district maps to give one party an advantage. While all districts must have roughly the same population, mapmakers can make subjective decisions to create a partisan tilt.
Is gerrymandering legal? Yes and no. In 2019, the Supreme Court ruled that the federal courts have no role to play in blocking partisan gerrymanders. However, the court left intact parts of the Voting Rights Act that prohibit racial or ethnic gerrymandering.
Want to know more about redistricting and gerrymandering? Times reporters answer your most pressing questions here.
“This unprecedented act and inconsistent application of judicial power are manifestly and sadly undemocratic,” said Eric H. Holder Jr., the former attorney general and the chairman of the National Democratic Redistricting Committee.
Marc Elias, a Democratic lawyer and prominent voting rights advocate, argued that his defense of maps that clearly help Democrats was not inconsistent with his fight against Republican gerrymanders.
“What voters expect will be a fair map in Alabama won’t necessarily be the same thing in a state like Maine,” he said. “I tend to look at the maps in the states and ask a question: ‘Is it legal or is it not legal?’ I leave it to others to be social scientists about whether they think it is objectionable or not for other reasons.”
State courts are a relatively new venue for redistricting cases. For decades, most legal challenges to gerrymandered maps played out in the federal courts, and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was often used to challenge unfairly drawn districts.
But in 2017, four years after the Supreme Court hollowed out many of the protections of the Voting Rights Act, the League of Women Voters challenged Pennsylvania’s 2011 congressional maps in the state court system, arguing that the state’s Constitution “protects the right of voters to participate in the political process, to express political views, to affiliate with or support a political party, and to cast a vote.”
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which leaned Democratic, sided with the women’s group in January 2018, finding that the maps had “clearly, plainly and palpably” violated the state’s Constitution. The decision served as a signal to lawyers and good government groups across the country.
“There’s a renewed interest in this rich vein of state constitutional law and state constitutional tradition that many people had ignored, because as lawyers, we’ve been training for 60 years that the federal court is where we’re going to vindicate rights,” Mr. Li said. “And we’ve sort of tended to treat state courts and state constitutions almost as a stepchild. And then, we’re realizing there’s actually a lot there.”
Source: nytimes.com
