Lawmakers Urge Supreme Court to Leave Redistricting to Congress
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court hears oral arguments Tuesday in two partisan gerrymandering cases that could scramble congressional districts and change the way states redraw maps after the 2020 Census, marking the second consecutive year the justices will consider the issue.
In a sign of how much could change if the justices decide states can’t use the maps to entrench an advantage for their political party, the North Carolina and Maryland lawmakers who benefited from that process urged the Supreme Court to stay out of it and leave any overhaul of the redistricting process to Congress.
The nine Republican members of the Tar Heel State’s delegation — elected under a congressional map that state GOP officials said was drawn with the intent to keep a 10-3 advantage for their party — filed a brief at the high court arguing that state and federal lawmakers should rein in just that kind of line drawing. What appeared to be a Republican win last year in the 9th District remains undecided because of allegations of election fraud.
To back up their point, they highlight scores of recent bills on partisan gerrymandering, including House Democrats’ signature HR 1 legislation that would require states to create independent redistricting commissions, among other overhauls. That’s not to say they support it; all of them voted against that bill in a House vote earlier this month.
“This vigorous legislative debate, over a wide array of redistricting proposals, belies any claim that Congress and the States lack the practical ability and the initiative to remedy any problems in this sensitive area of policy-making,” the North Carolina Republicans wrote.
And Democratic Rep. David Trone, who represents Maryland’s 6th District which state officials redrew and increased the Democratic advantage in the congressional delegation from 6-2 to 7-1, said the politically preferable check on excessively partisan congressional maps is nationwide legislation. He is a co-sponsor of the House bill to do so.
“That bill, if it passes, would have a political legitimacy that cannot and should not come from this Court, which can only mire itself in partisanship by constitutionalizing standards for partisan gerrymandering and then refereeing the innumerable challenges that will ensue,” Trone wrote in a brief to the justices.
That argument could strike a chord with the Supreme Court, and particularly Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., who expressed during oral arguments last term his concern about the Supreme Court stepping into the inherently political redistricting process to pick winners and losers in elections.
But the challengers say the way both states drew maps with the express policy to benefit one party gives the Supreme Court a way to allow such lawsuits. The oral arguments Tuesday will give the first insights into the justices’ thinking on the issue now.
The two cases provide the justices with stark examples of how partisan gerrymandering can affect the rights of voters to choose their representative, but also how it can be utilized by whichever party is in power.
Last term, the justices ultimately sidestepped the central question of whether the nation’s voters can challenge as unconstitutional any legislative maps states draw that entrench a benefit to one political party to the detriment of another. It hasn’t allowed those lawsuits, but it hasn’t shut the door, either.
The four justices on the court’s liberal wing appear ready to step in. This year, Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh will be on the bench because Justice Anthony M. Kennedy left the court, and his views on the issue are a bit of a mystery since he has never decided a partisan gerrymandering case.
In another brief on this year’s cases, 40 current and former members of Congress — evenly split with 20 Republicans and 20 Democrats — told the justices that they have a crucial role to play “in fixing the problem.”
In a brief signed by Rep. Andy Harris, the only Maryland Republican, and 18 other current members of Congress, the group said the court could ultimately help lawmakers solve the problems of partisan gerrymandering.
“The cycles of extreme partisan gerrymandering are self-perpetuating, with partisanship and mistrust begetting still greater partisanship and mistrust,” the lawmakers wrote. “The modicum of judicial involvement required here — recognizing basic constitutional safeguards against the worst partisan gerrymanders — will allow the political process to begin to correct itself.”
The court will issue rulings by the end of the term at the end of June. The cases are Robert Rucho, et al., v Common Cause, et al., Docket No. 18-422, and Linda Lamone, et al., v. John Benisek, et al., Docket No. 18-726.
©2019 CQ-Roll Call, Inc., All Rights Reserved
Visit CQ Roll Call at www.rollcall.com
Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.
In The News
WASHINGTON (AP) — As coronavirus cases surge again nationwide the Supreme Court late Wednesday barred New York from enforcing certain limits on attendance at churches and synagogues in areas designated as hard hit by the virus. The justices split 5-4 with new Justice Amy Coney Barrett in the... Read More
WASHINGTON - Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr., told the Federalist Society in a keynote address Thursday night the coronavirus pandemic has led to "previously unimaginable restrictions on individual liberty." "I am not diminishing the severity of the virus's threat to public health," Alito continued in a... Read More
WASHINGTON -- So much for the new conservative majority of the Supreme Court dismantling the Affordable Care Act. On Tuesday, during oral arguments for California v. Texas, one of this term's most anticipated cases, two members of that majority, suggested they're not inclined to strike down... Read More
WASHINGTON — This morning, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on a legal challenge seeking to overturn the Affordable Care Act. This third major challenge to the ACA heard by the Supreme Court, Texas v. California seeks to decide whether Congress, by eliminating the penalty... Read More
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court with new Justice Amy Coney Barrett hears oral argument Tuesday in a case that threatens to wipe out the 2010 health care law, likely the term's most consequential case, under a political spotlight that rarely shines brighter on justices who would rather stay out of it.... Read More
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday set aside an appeals court ruling by a panel of conservative judges that held an injured police officer could sue and win damages from the leader of a Black Lives Matter protest rally. The case had raised alarms among civil libertarians, who said it... Read More