BYH, first they came for the immigrants, refugees and migrants, but I did not speak up because I was none of those....

Fight to end partisan gerrymandering far from over

Justin Leavitt

Justin Leavitt


Thursday, June 21, 2018

Add one to the growing list of disappointments. The Supreme Court had the opportunity Monday to take a massive step toward more reasonable elections — and punted. The decisions postpone a national reckoning with the escalating pace of partisan warfare.

But just because the court kicked the can of partisan gerrymandering down the road does not mean those who hope for change are at a loss. In fact, there are plenty of other opportunities for victory on the horizon.

The two cases that the Supreme Court decided this week had to do with the districts we use to elect legislators. Every 10 years, we redraw federal, state and local districts to keep them roughly the same size. The district lines determine which voters elect which representatives, elevating some interests and burying others.

In most of the country, sitting legislators draw lines for the districts they call their own or for the districts they hope to have someday. Unlike most other democracies, we let incumbent politicians pick their own voters. The past few cycles have seen increasingly brazen efforts to promote personal and partisan interest over the public interest.

This is wrong, ethically and legally. In 2004, every single Supreme Court justice agreed that an excessive injection of politics into the redistricting process was unlawful. But they could not agree how to tell what was excessive. That disagreement did not condone the crime, but it effectively took the police off the beat.

Enter this week's opinions, confronting a Republican gerrymander in Wisconsin and a Democratic gerrymander in Maryland. (The 2010 elections gave Republicans more opportunities to rig the lines, but both parties have taken advantage when they've had the chance.)

The fundamental question was whether state power can be deployed to discriminate based on partisan affiliation. The usual answer is clearly "no." For redistricting, we have to settle for "we'll see." The court punted each case on procedural grounds. And while there are other cases in the works, for now, federal courts rarely offer relief when the officials we pay work to entrench some of us against others of us, on the basis of the parties we prefer.

Fortunately, we can look elsewhere. Each state has its own constitution. State courts in both Florida and Pennsylvania have recently invalidated partisan gerrymanders. More will be asked to do the same.

There is also life beyond litigation. Ten years ago, California took the pen from politicians , joining Arizona, Idaho, Montana, Washington and Iowa (sort of) in asking a balanced commission of independent citizens to draw district lines. New York and Ohio followed suit with promising changes of their own.

In fact, citizens may have measures on the ballot this fall in at least five other states, changing the process in places such as Arkansas and Utah. At least where the initiative is an option, voters ticked off by politics as usual may draw extra courage from the court's determination to be meek.

And we shouldn't stop there. Some smaller American towns — and many other countries — have election systems that lower the partisan temperature on district lines, with protections for majorities and minorities alike. If district lines are less vital for partisan gain, there is less temptation to abuse them for partisan mischief, no matter who draws the lines or which courts are watching.

And finally, there are the elections themselves. Partisan gerrymanders flourish when a single political party controls all of the levers of the redistricting process. In 2018, there are 15 gubernatorial races and more than 2,000 legislative races that could change the partisan lineup of state and federal redistricting decisions, leaving control either unified or split. Past gerrymandering has left a sea wall that is formidable but not insurmountable. The elections for the redistricting pen have already begun.

The Supreme Court passed up an opportunity to affirm basic principles about government of the people for the people. Thankfully, in many states, the people still have the chance to affirm those principles for themselves.

Justin Leavitt is a law professor at Loyola Law School at Los Angeles, a former official at the Justice Department and runs the All About Redistricting website.


Humans of Greenville


Local photographer Joe Pellegrino explores Greenville to create a photographic census of its people.

Op Ed

November 16, 2018

U.S. Food and Drug Administration commissioner Scott Gottlieb on Wednesday announced new measures regulating the sale of products that seem to reduce the negative health impacts of nicotine addiction — in the name of protecting children from those health impacts.

Oddly, Gottlieb also…


November 16, 2018

In mob movies they call it "going to the mattresses" — getting ready for war.

One day after voters put an end to unaccountable, strongman-style, one-party rule in Washington, Trump moved to cover his flank. He shoved out Attorney General Jeff Sessions and installed a replacement, Matt…

Eugene Robinson

November 15, 2018

When French President Emmanuel Macron denounced populist nationalism this week and called on world leaders to support institutions such as the United Nations that defend "the common good of the world," liberal elites cheered. The speech was seen as a rebuke of President Trump, whose opposition to…


November 15, 2018

The 2018 election is finally and mercifully over and now is no time for progressives to rest on their laurels. Having taken some promising initial steps in the struggle to overcome Trumpism and build a better, fairer, freer and more sustainable nation and planet, now is the time for caring and…

Rob Schofield

November 15, 2018

Bad news for North Carolina is official: Amazon decided to split its east coast headquarters between two cities — and neither one is in our state. New York City and Alexandria, Va., will split the estimated 50,000 jobs and $5 billion in investment from the Seattle company’s…

Mark Johnson

November 14, 2018

The Washington Post

One of American elections' biggest vulnerabilities can be found in one of the most obvious places: the voting machines themselves. The country's voting infrastructure may not have been tampered with this time around, but experts say outdated systems and an overreliance on…

November 14, 2018

When Democrats took control of the House in Tuesday's midterm elections, two things were certain: President Trump's remaining legislative agenda is dead, and the chamber's Judiciary Committee is ready to combat any White House attempt to meddle in or obstruct special counsel Robert S. Mueller's…


November 14, 2018

According to a recent report in The New York Times, Health and Human Services Department officials have been circulating a proposal to define sex. Their memo says, "Sex means a person's status as male or female based on immutable biological traits identifiable by or before birth."

They add, "The…

Walter Williams

November 13, 2018

Jennifer Rubin, The Washington Post

"Saturday Night Live" comedian Pete Davidson got reamed for making a tasteless joke a week ago Saturday about Dan Crenshaw, a former Navy SEAL who lost his eye in combat in Afghanistan. Days later, Texans elected Crenshaw, a Republican, to Congress. On…

November 13, 2018

Democrats achieved significant victories this year in the “inner suburbs” of Charlotte, Raleigh, Greensboro, and North Carolina’s other major cities — tossing out GOP incumbents in the General Assembly, county commissions, and other offices.

Although Republicans did better…

john hood.jpg
303 stories in Op Ed. Viewing 1 through 10.
«First Page   «Previous Page        
Page 1 of 31
        Next Page»   Last Page»