Ginsburg Slams Partisan Gerrymandering Before Record Book Fest Audience

September 3, 2019 by Dan McCue
Ginsburg Slams Partisan Gerrymandering Before Record Book Fest Audience
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg addresses an audience of 4,000 at the 2019 National Book Festival. (Photo by Dan McCue)

WASHINGTON – U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on Saturday told a record crowd that had turned out to see her at the National Book Festival that “something needs to be done about partisan gerrymandering.”

Ginsburg was responding to a question posed by NPR legal affairs reporter Nina Totenberg, who asked about a 2015 ruling by the court upholding the validity of an independent redistricting commission that had been established by voter referendum in Arizona.

In recent years, Ginsburg has more often than not been on the dissenting side of high court rulings, but in Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, the justice delivered the opinion of the court, in which Justices Anthony Kennedy, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan joined.

“The good voters of Arizona were tired of drawing district lines when there was very little incentive to vote because your district had been rigged,” Ginsburg said after the applause that followed her initial assessment had died down.

The way things were, she explained, the district one lived in was either going to be a Republican seat or a Democratic seat by design.

“So your vote didn’t count. That’s not the way a democracy should run,” Ginsburg said.

The justice noted that California was also at the forefront of the movement to have district lines drawn by nonpartisan independent commissions, but it was a legal challenge in Arizona that finally brought the matter to the Supreme Court.

In 2000, Arizona voters approved a ballot initiative that transferred redistricting power to an independent commission. The state legislature sued, contending that it alone could draw the maps under the constitutional provision providing that each state’s legislature should prescribe “the times, places and manner of holding elections.”

“State legislators would not willingly give up the monopoly they had on redistricting, so it came down to the good people of the state to say this should be done,” she said. “This presented a Constitutional question [for the Supreme Court to decide] because the Constitution says redistricting will be done by the legislature.

“Some of my colleagues said ‘legislature’ means ‘legislature.’ It doesn’t mean ‘the people.’ But to me it seemed quite clear that the state, by having a referendum process, had made the people the legislature for this purpose,” Ginsburg said.

“That’s what referendum are for – they give the deciding voice to ‘We The People’ and not the partisan members of the legislature, and I think after that case other states, whose constitutions allowed for ballot initiatives, were encouraged to hold referendums on this issue,” she said.

But Totenberg was not done quizzing Ginsburg about the issue. She reminded the audience that Chief Justice John Roberts had argued vigorously against Ginsburg’s position in the Arizona case.

In a dissent joined by Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito, Roberts wrote that the phrase “the legislature” in the Elections Clause is unambiguous, referring to a representative body.

“When seeking to discern the meaning of a word in the Constitution, there is no better dictionary than the rest of the Constitution itself,” the chief justice wrote.

“Now fast-forward to this year,” Totenberg said. “A 5-4 Conservative majority on the Court ruled, essentially, that the voters have no ability to challenge extreme partisan gerrymanders in court.

“But at the same time, the majority opinion written by the chief justice seems to suggest that other remedies, like independent redistricting commissions, provide alternative ways to address the problem of partisanship in redistricting,” she continued.

“Could you please explain what’s going on here?” Totenberg asked. “Have the court’s conservatives changed their minds about redistricting? Is this just window dressing?”

Ginsburg turned to her inquisitor with a smile.

“As one lives, one learns,” she said. “So I think what the chief justice has learned is that he was wrong in the Arizona case.”

A+
a-
  • Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
  • National Book Festival
  • NPR
  • partisan gerrymandering
  • Supreme Court
  • In The News

    Health

    Voting

    Supreme Court

    July 14, 2025
    by Dan McCue
    Supreme Court Green-Lights Dismantling of Education Department

    WASHINGTON — In a major victory for the Trump administration, the Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the White House... Read More

    WASHINGTON — In a major victory for the Trump administration, the Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the White House can move forward with plans to lay off nearly 1,400 employees at the Department of Education. As is their custom in dispensing with emergency orders, the... Read More

    July 8, 2025
    by Dan McCue
    Supreme Court Lifts Stay on Trump Effort to Slash Federal Workforce

    WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday lifted a lower court’s order that had prevented the Trump administration from moving... Read More

    WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday lifted a lower court’s order that had prevented the Trump administration from moving forward with planned mass layoffs and the dismantling of a number of federal agencies. In its unsigned ruling, the court said an executive order signed by... Read More

    July 3, 2025
    by Tom Ramstack
    Supreme Court to Decide Liability of Transit Agencies After Accidents

    WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court agreed Thursday to determine whether New Jersey Transit is immune from liability as a state... Read More

    WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court agreed Thursday to determine whether New Jersey Transit is immune from liability as a state agency. The public transit agency was sued by two men who were hit and injured by commuter buses in separate accidents. In one case of a... Read More

    July 3, 2025
    by Dan McCue
    Justices to Take Up Two Transgender Athlete Cases Next Term

    WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court announced Thursday that it will hear two cases challenging the constitutionality of state laws that... Read More

    WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court announced Thursday that it will hear two cases challenging the constitutionality of state laws that bar transgender athletes from girls’ and women’s sports teams. The two cases come to the court from Idaho and West Virginia. Just last month, a sharply... Read More

    July 1, 2025
    by Dan McCue
    Supreme Court to Review $1B Cox Digital Copyright Case

    WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to decide a copyright dispute between Cox Communications and major music labels... Read More

    WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to decide a copyright dispute between Cox Communications and major music labels that could set the stage for a landmark decision on copyright infringement liability in the digital era. The case is Cox Communications, Inc., et al. v.... Read More

    July 1, 2025
    by Tom Ramstack
    Supreme Court Agrees to Rehear Case Seeking End to Campaign Finance Limits

    WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court agreed Monday to hear a lawsuit during its next term that seeks to end some... Read More

    WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court agreed Monday to hear a lawsuit during its next term that seeks to end some restrictions on campaign spending by political parties. The limits were imposed during the Nixon administration to prevent political parties from coordinating efforts with candidates on how... Read More

    News From The Well
    scroll top