The Supremes got it right on gerrymandering
If Americans listened only to Democrats, they might be under the impression that “gerrymandering” was the monopoly of the Republican Party. GOP redistricting, Democrats and the media allies tell us, permits conservatives to steal elections, impede progress and undermine democracy. And in the minds of progressives, anything that damages their electoral prospects is by default undemocratic and unconstitutional.
So you can imagine the histrionics that erupted after the Supreme Court held on Thursday that federal courts have no authority to stop partisan gerrymandering. It’s a decision that allows elected officials to continue redrawing electoral districts in accordance to state laws and their own preferences, rather than by court order.
As it should be.
Yet President Barack Obama’s attorney general, Eric Holder, warned that the decision “tears at the fabric of our democracy.” Dan Pfeiffer, another Obama administration alumnus, argued that the Supreme Court had become “a tool of [an] anti-democratic, conservative minority.”
These comments, and many others like them, once again illustrate that contemporary liberals, often self-appointed sentinels of institutional norms, have no genuine interest in separation of power or neutral principles when it hurts their partisan bottom line.
It’s ironic, in fact, that the same people who worked for an administration that spent years abusing unilateral power to circumvent the elected legislative branch would be appalled by the “undemocratic” proposition of — wait for it — handing back power to elected officials rather than empowering judges.
Of course, conservatives aren’t in the minority, anyway, contra Pfeiffer. Nor would it matter if they were. The Supreme Court is charged with upholding the Constitution, not bending to the vagaries of the electorate. It is legislatures that are charged with enacting the wishes of voters — and one of those wishes is creating the contours of their districts.
There are no “legal standards discernible in Constitution for making such judgments,” noted Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority. There is no objective standard, either. In a nation with ever-shifting populations and political allegiances, the relative fairness of a district is a subjective matter — and thus a political one. It always has been.
Whether we approve of the practice or not, both parties have used gerrymandering since the inception of the nation. The origins of the expression itself go back to 1812, when a Boston newspaper noted that Massachusetts Gov. Elbridge Gerry’s redistricting efforts — districts said to resemble the shape of a salamander — benefited only his Democratic-Republican Party.
see also
Chief Justice John Roberts is fighting to see that the center holds
Chief Justice John Roberts managed to disappoint both the left…
As Roberts noted, not even the Founders could provide a satisfactory remedy to the problem. Notwithstanding the protests of the four dissenting justices in this week’s case, nowhere did the Framers suggest that unelected judges should usurp the power of the legislature and just do the work on their own.
Now, it’s been a longstanding position among right-thinking people that competitive House races are healthy for “democracy.” But most advocates for redistricting “reform” aren’t concerned about rock-solid left-wing districts created around urban centers like New York or Chicago. What gets under their skin are suburban and rural districts that aren’t competitive for liberals.
Even today, liberal pundits focus their attention on Republican-drawn boundaries of states like Wisconsin and North Carolina. But Democrats in states like California and Illinois had redrawn their districts long ago to disempower Republican voters. Democrats are doing the same thing in Maryland right now.
Yet the best way for these liberals to stop gerrymandering efforts is by winning elections. Because while courts play an important role in American life, if we continue to task them with legislative decision-making, the judicial bench will grow increasingly susceptible to corrosive partisan interests. Which, it seems, is exactly what many Democrats want.
None of this is to argue that redistricting efforts aren’t often highly partisan or damaging. These fights are ugly and messy, much like all our other debates. It’s simply the price of living in a free and pluralistic society.
Twitter: @DavidHarsanyi
Click Here: cheap pandora Rings
