Cooper: Back to pterodactyl districts

Cooper: Back to pterodactyl districts

June 28th, 2019 by Clint Cooper in Opinion Free Press

The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday said it did not have the jurisdiction to rule on gerrymandering.

Photo by GABRIELLA DEMCZUK

Get ready for more congressional districts that resemble a dragon, a cow's face, a dog, a pelvis, "a broken-winged pterodactyl" or "Goofy kicking Donald Duck."

The United States Supreme Court said Thursday politically drawn districts were all well and good because federal courts don't have the jurisdiction to rule on such questions.

"We conclude that partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court in a 5-4 decision. "Federal judges have no license to reallocate political power between the two major political parties, with no plausible grant of authority in the Constitution, and no legal standards to limit and direct their decisions."

The high court, in fact, has never moved previously to end gerrymandering, but it was thought the presence of one case from Maryland that showed blatant Democratic gerrymandering and one case from North Carolina that showed blatant Republican gerrymandering might entice the court to end its hands-off policy.

The term "gerrymandering" is named after Elbridge Gerry, a governor of Massachusetts who, in 1812, signed a bill that created a partisan district in the Boston area that many said resembled a mythological salamander.

For most of the last three-quarters of the 20th century, when Democrats held a majority of governorships and for most of those years both houses of Congress, gerrymandering was a given. Republicans occasionally uttered a peep, but it was rarely heard.

Since Republicans won both house of Congress in 1994, have held both houses for a majority of the years since and have had a majority of governorships, Democrats have raised far more than a peep. Where gerrymandering doesn't go their way, it's racist, unconstitutional, unethical and unfair.

But the two cases were an even-handed opportunity for the high court to weigh in or provide a new standard of creating congressional districts.

In declining to do so, though, it vacated the lower courts' rulings, essentially briefly re-establishing the blatantly gerrymandered districts.

"No one can accuse this Court of having a crabbed view of the reach of its competence," Roberts wrote. "But we have no commission to allocate political power and influence in the absence of a constitutional directive or legal standards to guide us in the exercise of such authority."

The chief justice, acknowledging the court had never struck down a partisan gerrymander as unconstitutional (though it has in perceived racial gerrymandering), said to do so would expand its judicial authority.

"Consideration of the impact of today's ruling on democratic principles," he wrote, "cannot ignore the effect of the unelected and politically unaccountable branch of the federal government assuming such an extraordinary and unprecedented role."

However, he did highlight the effort of some states, which have approved ballot measures to reform the redistricting process, and legislation passed by the House this year that would require states to establish independent redistricting commissions to draw voting lines.

It is precisely those independent redistricting commissions, though, that made us hope the Supreme Court would craft a better way. "Independent" often depends on your point of view. We don't believe a Democratic governor in a state he or she would like to turn more blue is going to appoint a truly independent commission, and the same probably goes for a Republican in a state he or she would like to become more red.

If the commission is populated with learned university professors, for instance, there is a 10-1 chance — according to a 2018 National Association of Scholars study — that the professor will be a Democrat.

Nevertheless, we figure this won't be the last time the issue of gerrymandering comes before the Supreme Court.

In the meantime, in a ruling also handed down Thursday that relates in some ways to gerrymandering, the court sent a case involving the use of a citizenship question on the 2020 census back to lower courts for further discussion. The Trump administration had wanted the question to be on the census, as it had been in some previous years, to ensure better enforcement of the Voting Rights Act.

Opponents feared the question would cause illegal immigrants not to fill out their census forms. And if they don't fill out their census forms, they're not counted toward the number of people living in a state. And states — wrongly, we believe — are doled out their congressional representatives every 10 years based on the number of people in the state, not the number of citizens in the state.

In other words, the more illegal immigrants — who cannot vote — in the state, the more potential congressional representatives the state has. Such a count naturally benefits Democrats, who want people like illegal immigrants to depend on the government for their existence.

Although the high court's ruling blocked the inclusion of the citizenship question, probably ruling it out for the 2020 census, it did not preclude future different rulings if the Trump administration provides a better explanation for its justification for using the citizenship question.

Getting Started/Comments Policy

Getting started

  1. 1. If you frequently comment on news websites then you may already have a Disqus account. If so, click the "Login" button at the top right of the comment widget and choose whether you'd rather log in with Facebook, Twitter, Google, or a Disqus account.
  2. 2. If you've forgotten your password, Disqus will email you a link that will allow you to create a new one. Easy!
  3. 3. If you're not a member yet, Disqus will go ahead and register you. It's seamless and takes about 10 seconds.
  4. 4. To register, either go through the login process or just click in the box that says "join the discussion," type your comment, and either choose a social media platform to log you in or create a Disqus account with your email address.
  5. 5. If you use Twitter, Facebook or Google to log in, you will need to stay logged into that platform in order to comment. If you create a Disqus account instead, you'll need to remember your Disqus password. Either way, you can change your display name if you'd rather not show off your real name.
  6. 6. Don't be a huge jerk or do anything illegal, and you'll be fine.

Chattanooga Times Free Press Comments Policy

The Chattanooga Times Free Press web sites include interactive areas in which users can express opinions and share ideas and information. We cannot and do not monitor all of the material submitted to the website. Additionally, we do not control, and are not responsible for, content submitted by users. By using the web sites, you may be exposed to content that you may find offensive, indecent, inaccurate, misleading, or otherwise objectionable. You agree that you must evaluate, and bear all risks associated with, the use of the Times Free Press web sites and any content on the Times Free Press web sites, including, but not limited to, whether you should rely on such content. Notwithstanding the foregoing, you acknowledge that we shall have the right (but not the obligation) to review any content that you have submitted to the Times Free Press, and to reject, delete, disable, or remove any content that we determine, in our sole discretion, (a) does not comply with the terms and conditions of this agreement; (b) might violate any law, infringe upon the rights of third parties, or subject us to liability for any reason; or (c) might adversely affect our public image, reputation or goodwill. Moreover, we reserve the right to reject, delete, disable, or remove any content at any time, for the reasons set forth above, for any other reason, or for no reason. If you believe that any content on any of the Times Free Press websites infringes upon any copyrights that you own, please contact us pursuant to the procedures outlined in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (Title 17 U.S.C. § 512) at the following address:

Copyright Agent
The Chattanooga Times Free Press
400 East 11th Street
Chattanooga, TN 37403
Phone: 423-757-6315
Email: webeditor@timesfreepress.com