Loading...

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.”

In The News

Health

Voting

Supreme Court

After Supreme Court Backs Praying Coach, No Sweeping Changes

Across the ideological spectrum, there were predictions of dramatic consequences when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of a... Read More

Across the ideological spectrum, there were predictions of dramatic consequences when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of a public high school football coach’s right to pray on the field after games. Yet three months after the decision — and well into the football season... Read More

September 16, 2022
by Tom Ramstack
Court Order Requiring Yeshiva Univ. to Recognize Gay Rights Group Remains in Place for Now

WASHINGTON — The legal fight isn’t over after the U.S. Supreme Court this week declined to overturn a state court... Read More

WASHINGTON — The legal fight isn’t over after the U.S. Supreme Court this week declined to overturn a state court order requiring New York’s Yeshiva University to give official recognition to a student gay rights group. The university said the court order trampled its First Amendment... Read More

September 11, 2022
by Dan McCue
Chief Justice Says In-Person Oral Arguments Will Resume in October

COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. — Chief Justice John Roberts revealed Friday night that the public will be allowed back into the... Read More

COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. — Chief Justice John Roberts revealed Friday night that the public will be allowed back into the Supreme Court building to hear oral arguments when the justices return to work in October. Roberts made the announcement, which has yet to be posted on... Read More

August 31, 2022
by Tom Ramstack
Supreme Court Advised to Avoid Territorial Citizenship Case

WASHINGTON — The Biden administration on Monday told the U.S. Supreme Court to let Congress decide the citizenship of residents... Read More

WASHINGTON — The Biden administration on Monday told the U.S. Supreme Court to let Congress decide the citizenship of residents of U.S. territories rather than intervening with a court ruling. The U.S. solicitor general informed the Supreme Court of the Biden administration’s advice in a legal... Read More

Post-Roe Differences Surface in GOP Over New Abortion Rules

MADISON, Wis. (AP) — When the U.S. Supreme Court repealed in June a woman's constitutional right to an abortion, Wisconsin's 1849 law... Read More

MADISON, Wis. (AP) — When the U.S. Supreme Court repealed in June a woman's constitutional right to an abortion, Wisconsin's 1849 law that bans the procedure except when a mother's life is at risk became newly relevant. Republicans in the Legislature blocked an attempt by Democratic Gov. Tony Evers to... Read More

July 29, 2022
by Tom Ramstack
Bill Would Help Congress Counteract Supreme Court Rulings

WASHINGTON — Senate Democrats proposed a bill Thursday that would authorize Congress to override Supreme Court decisions that interpret constitutional... Read More

WASHINGTON — Senate Democrats proposed a bill Thursday that would authorize Congress to override Supreme Court decisions that interpret constitutional rights or federal statutes. The Supreme Court Review Act would streamline procedures for Congress to use legislation to amend statutes or to create new legal rights... Read More

News From The Well