Bless Wellcome Middle School's heart. They are the best kept secret in the county. Great things are happening there and...

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

February 19, 2019

El Chapo’s murderous Sinaloa drug cartel was based in Mexico, but for years its American nerve center was Chicago. His henchmen from the Little Village neighborhood, twin brothers Pedro and Margarito Flores, turned the city into a conduit for as much as 1,500 kilos of cocaine and heroin each…

February 19, 2019

There's one in every family: The embarrassing relative who spouts off conspiracy theories or racist opinions at Thanksgiving.

If that relative was in your circle of friends, you'd make sure they didn't get invited ever again. But because they're family, you're stuck putting up with the crazy.


Colin Campbell

February 18, 2019

I was born in Charlotte. But I grew up in rural Mecklenburg County. There used to be such a place — and, indeed, quite a few such places still exist in our increasingly urbanized state.

My family lived on 40 acres, mostly forest with a freight-rail track running through it. When the train…

john hood.jpg

February 18, 2019


It snowed on Amy Klobuchar as she announced her run for president. And while that might be a bad omen for some candidates, the icy weather accurately symbolizes her appeal.

The Minnesota Democrat, just elected to a third Senate term, portrays herself as a common-sense pragmatist from a blue-…

Steve and Cokie Roberts

February 17, 2019

If the most important factor determining the welfare of workers is the growth rate of the economy, that has policy implications that free-market conservatives, among others, will welcome.

Real, long-term economic growth is about investment, about both the amount invested and how skillfully it is…

john hood.jpg

February 17, 2019

Would you like to know why U.S. sanctions against companies owned by Russian billionaire and businessman Oleg Deripaska are being lifted?

You are the reason.

Me too.

And so is everybody else who lives and votes in North Carolina.

Last April, the Treasury Department imposed sanctions against…


February 16, 2019

With confidence in government at record lows, where have all our leaders gone? Where is the James Madison of today, or the Thomas Jefferson, or even Everett Dirksen? He was the Republican leader who partnered with President Johnson to pass civil rights legislation in the 1960s.

These people were…


February 15, 2019

The proposed DMV move brings to mind one of the old Three Stooges comedies, the one where one of the zany trio says, “I’ve cut this board three times and it’s still too short.” Our state continues to take cuts at property decisions and keeps coming up short.

State political…

Tom Campbell

February 15, 2019

On Bleecker Street in Manhattan, you can find both a Planned Parenthood clinic and a boutique for pregnant women.

According to Vogue, the store, Hatch, "is arguably the first of its kind, in that it was designed specifically for pregnant shoppers: Changing rooms have a size chart to help you figure…


February 15, 2019

The decision by Virginia's top three elected officials to hunker down and cling to their jobs is bad for both the state and the Democratic Party. If they won't go, the only thing to do is investigate them all.

Gov. Ralph Northam, Lt. Gov. Justin Fairfax and Attorney General Mark Herring have all…

Eugene Robinson
316 stories in Op Ed. Viewing 1 through 10.
«First Page   «Previous Page        
Page 1 of 32
        Next Page»   Last Page»