partisanship — Online Journal — Columbia Undergraduate Law Review

Rucho, Lamone, and Partisan Gerrymandering: The Role of Mathematics in Establishing Justiciability

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?

Maria StuebnerJanuary 17, 2021gerrymandering, partisanship, redistricting, judiciability, mathematics

The Consequence of a Partisan Court: Pennsylvania’s Anti-Democratic Rejection of the Green Party

On September 17, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania began printing ballots for November’s election after the Pennsylvania Supreme Court made its final decisions regarding ballot access. In southeastern Pennsylvania alone, over 600,000 voters had already requested mail-in ballots. Members of the major parties awaited the chance to cast their vote for the presidential ticket of their choice. However, not all the presidential tickets were actually represented on the ballot; the Green Party’s candidates for president and vice president had been struck from the ballot over a filing error in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court case In Re: Nomination Paper of Scroggin. An examination of this case and the court that decided it reveals that partisan ballot decisions like In Re: Scroggin undermine democratic principles and subvert evenhanded justice while enabling the duopoly of the major parties.

Margaret TilleyJanuary 9, 2021Pennsylvania, partisanship, election law, 2020 Election

Gerrymandering & The Supreme Court

Gerrymandering, 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?