Much has changed in the United States legal system since 1812, but the partisan practice of gerrymandering, or drawing political districts to favor one party over another, remains. Since the first salamander-looking “gerrymander” created by 1812 Governor of Massachusetts Elbridge Gerry, gerrymandering techniques have evolved to include “cracking” districts to spread out a certain voting bloc and “packing” as many voters of one bloc into one district. Regardless of technique, this practice essentially allows politicians to pick their voters. With modern technology, computer algorithms can now account for a multitude of other factors including voter demographics in drawing a district, making the redistricting process limitless in its vulnerability to partisanship. This phenomenon has raised a key legal question: When does partisan gerrymandering become constitutionally impermissible?
Read MoreGerrymandering, or the act of redistricting in a way that advances a political party’s election efforts, undermines our electoral process through a partisan lens. In the landmark case Gil v. Whitford (2018), the Supreme Court ruled that the case lacked sufficient evidence needed to prove the “packing and cracking” gerrymandering allegedly completed by the Republican Party in several Wisconsin districts. In Benisek v. Lamone (2018), the Supreme Court ruled that the Court was not in a position to decide on an issue of possibly gerrymandered maps in Maryland, stating that intervention would be “against the public interest.” Both of these recent cases demonstrate the highest court’s refusal to get involved in the gerrymandering issue, which raises the question: should courts interfere with gerrymandering at all, and if so, how should they go about it?
Read More