As Gerrymanders Get Worse, Legal Options to Overturn Them Dwindle

Voting-rights advocates are in a North Carolina state court docket in Raleigh this month, arguing in three lawsuits that Republican gerrymanders of the State Legislature and the state’s 14 seats within the House of Representatives are so excessive that they violate the state Constitution.

Only two years in the past, a number of the identical legal professionals have been arguing that remarkably related Republican gerrymanders of the identical legislature, drawn a decade in the past, violated the identical clauses of the structure. That trial ended with a convincing verdict of their favor, however solely after the gerrymandered maps have been used for nearly a decade.

Winning these sorts of circumstances, nonetheless belatedly, now seems rather more of an extended shot. Experts say that at the same time as gerrymanders grow to be ever extra egregious, the authorized avenues to overturn them have gotten narrower.

“The good news is that litigation will probably go a little faster than in the last decade,” Richard L. Hasen, an election-law professional on the University of California, Irvine, and a longtime critic of gerrymanders, stated this previous week. “The bad news is that it will progress faster because the plaintiffs will lose.”

More and extra states — principally Republican like Ohio and Texas, however now Democratic ones like Illinois — are drawing maps that successfully assure that the celebration in energy stays in energy.

North Carolina underscores how excessive the stakes and the way weak the authorized guardrails are.

With a Democratic governor, two Republican senators and a cut up document in current presidential elections — the state voted for Barack Obama in 2008 and Republicans narrowly since then — North Carolina voters are as evenly divided as any within the nation. But legislative and congressional maps permitted this month by the Republican-controlled Legislature lopsidedly favor Republicans.

According to PlanScore.org, a nonpartisan web site, if the North Carolina vote beneath the brand new maps have been cut up 50-50 between the 2 events following current voting patterns, it might give Republicans a 64-56 edge within the State House and a 32-18 margin within the State Senate.

The new congressional map is much more tilted, giving Democrats a bonus in solely three of the state’s 14 House seats, down from the 5 they maintain now.

The racial impression of the maps is sweeping. The authorities accountability watchdog group Common Cause stated 1 / 4 of the 36 state legislative seats held by African Americans, all Democrats, can be probably to flip Republican. The district containing the seat {that a} Black congressman, Representative G.Ok. Butterfield, has occupied since 1992 additionally misplaced a lot of its Black constituency, and he selected to retire on the finish of this time period.

“The Legislature handed us a map that’s an extreme political gerrymander and an extreme racial gerrymander,” Mr. Butterfield stated final week. “It’s unconscionable, and it’s unconstitutional.”

North Carolina Republicans say they used neither racial nor political information in drawing the maps. Asked whether or not the State Senate map was a partisan gerrymander, the Republican co-chairman of the Senate redistricting committee, Senator Paul Newton, replied, “The courts will decide that.” But, he added, “No, it’s not. It is fair, and should be a fair and legal map.”

Democrats and voting-rights advocates strongly disagree.

Under Voting Rights Act guidelines in place earlier than the Supreme Court gutted the legislation in 2013, “the Justice Department wouldn’t have approved these maps,” stated Allison Riggs, the co-executive director of the Southern Coalition for Social Justice, which is representing plaintiffs in a single lawsuit.

But that’s not the one authorized avenue constricted in recent times.

The Supreme Court in 2019 ended a decades-long debate over the constitutionality of partisan gerrymandering, saying it was up to Congress, not the courts, to repair politically skewed maps.

The court docket additionally has made it tougher to show that political districts have been drawn to scale back minority voters’ clout, a violation of the remaining guidelines of the Voting Rights Act. A 2018 Supreme Court ruling in a Texas case stated {that a} state’s document of racial discrimination in redistricting — lengthy a consider such circumstances — couldn’t override the belief that lawmakers have been appearing in good religion, even once they drew districts that clearly locked in their very own energy.”

That ruling, with the inexperienced gentle for partisan gerrymandering, is prompting lawmakers to attempt to dodge lawsuits with a brand new argument: Maps that dilute minority votes aren’t racially biased. They’re simply efforts to neuter political rivals.

Beyond that, authorized challenges face a a lot much less sympathetic federal bench remade by the 226 right-leaning judges and three Supreme Court justices confirmed through the Trump administration. Mr. Trump’s selections flipped the partisan steadiness of three of the 13 appeals courts and crammed about one in 4 district court docket seats.

The onslaught of gerrymanders would additional shrink an already minuscule variety of aggressive seats in state legislatures and the House of Representatives. Even earlier than the newest maps, partisan benefits have been so one-sided that 4 in 10 seats in state legislatures have been uncontested. In the House of Representatives, gerrymanders might scale back the variety of aggressive districts — now maybe 51 of the chamber’s 435 seats — by 1 / 4, stated David Wasserman, the chief professional on the House on the Cook Political Report.

“It used to be the people’s House, elected every two years to make it the most responsive,” stated Edward B. Foley, a constitutional legislation scholar and director of Election Law at Ohio State University. “By eliminating competitive districts, you’re making it the least responsive.”

In North Carolina, gerrymanders and lawsuits opposing them are a constant. Suits contesting Republican-drawn maps were filed in 2011, 2013, 2015, 2016, 2018 and 2019. Republicans grudgingly redrew them under court order in 2016, 2017 and 2019.

This year is different in one key respect: All three suits have been filed in state court, the only courts left to contest partisan gerrymanders — and the courts that gave plaintiffs their rare victory in 2019.

In one, the N.A.A.C.P. and Common Cause claim new maps of the State House and State Senate break state rules aimed at complying with the Voting Rights Act. Another, by the state League of Conservation Voters, an environmental advocacy group, argues that both the legislative and congressional maps are racial and partisan gerrymanders.

In a third, 13 North Carolina Democrats, financed by a Democratic Party affiliate, call the new House of Representatives map a partisan gerrymander. Under state law, two of the cases will go to three-judge panels and then, if appealed, to the state Supreme Court.

Given the long odds facing federal lawsuits, the switch to state courts may become a trend. “There’s a surprising number of opportunities for these state constitutional challenges,” stated Marina Ok. Jenkins, the director of litigation and coverage on the National Democratic Redistricting Committee, an arm of the Democratic Party.

The reason is that states offer a clear avenue to attack unfair maps that is absent in federal lawsuits. Forty-nine state constitutions enshrine a right to vote (Arizona, the exception, has an implicit voting-rights guarantee), and 30 require that elections be free or “free and equal.” The federal Constitution contains neither clause.

Both a North Carolina three-judge panel in 2019 and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in 2018 cited guarantees of free and equal elections in rulings striking down partisan gerrymanders. That could guide other states in interpreting similar clauses, said Joshua A. Douglas, an expert on state election laws at the University of Kentucky law school.

As a result, some legal challenges to gerrymandered maps could come down to the political complexion of state courts, which the nonpartisan website Ballotpedia estimates tilt Republican in 27 states and Democratic in 15. A few high courts, most notably the Texas Supreme Court, have reputations as graveyards for voting-rights suits.

North Carolina’s does not. But a decision by the Republican Legislature in 2018 to elect Supreme Court justices by party affiliation, scrapping nonpartisan elections, has made politics central to many cases. That could have a significant impact on gerrymandering suits, starting with the League of Conservation Voters filing.

That suit, like all redistricting suits, will be heard by a three-judge panel appointed by the chief justice of the Supreme Court. And that chief justice, Paul Newby, is a Republican who in November defeated the Democratic incumbent by 401 votes out of nearly 5.4 million cast. On Friday, he named two Republicans and one Democrat to the panel.

That could well bode a reversal of the panel’s earlier rejection of partisan map-drawing.

Mr. Butterfield said more is at stake in the House lawsuit than the partisan balance in the state.

“What they’re doing in my state, they’re doing in Texas and Georgia and Ohio,” he said. “It’s seismic. It’s monumental. It’s a gerrymandering epidemic that’s not just going to damage the Democratic Party. It will inflict damage on our democracy.”



Read Original Content Here

Scroll to Top