Gerrymandering Takes Center Stage In U.S. Again
People complain about a lot of issues these days. It's surprising that this doesn't come up more often then it does.
Minority House Leader Hakeem Jefferies recently appeared in a video clip discussing how a state supreme court election in Wisconsin could potentially swing the House in favor of the Democrats. Currently, Wisconsin has 6 Republican seats and 2 Democrat seats.
Gerrymandering is the act of redrawing electoral boundaries to favor one party. It is named after Elbridge Gerry, a politician who approved a district that resembled a salamander, hence the term "gerrymander."
Republicans are already concerned about the statement regarding gerrymandering. However, Wisconsin’s congressional districts were redrawn in 2022 by a Republican legislature. They were not updated in 2024, unlike other districts, because the state supreme court declined to hear a Democratic-backed lawsuit seeking to redraw them. The Princeton Gerrymandering Project gives the districts a fairness rating of F.
As you may be aware, Republicans currently control the presidency, Senate, and House. In the House, the majority is slim: 218 Republicans to 213 Democrats, with 4 vacant seats (2 Republican, 2 Democrat). If the Democrats can swing a few seats, it could be significant, as the Republicans might lose their majority.
How does a state supreme court justice affect gerrymandering
As mentioned earlier, the state supreme court is responsible for addressing issues related to electoral boundaries. In 2022, when it rejected a review of the boundaries, there were 4 conservative-leaning justices and 3 liberal-leaning ones. In 2023, liberal candidate Janet Claire Protasiewicz defeated conservative Daniel Kelly, ending a 15-year conservative majority. With liberal justice Ann Walsh Bradley set to retire, the election of a conservative justice could restore a conservative majority.
The Democrats could then push for a review, which liberal-leaning justices might grant. According to Jefferies, this could lead to “fairer” boundaries, which liberal-leaning justices are more likely to support, even if they favor the Democrats.
What’s keeping them from shifting the favor to the democrats?
Absolutely nothing. The state supreme court is the final authority here. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that state supreme courts are wholly responsible for interpreting their state constitutions, placing this issue outside federal jurisdiction. There is one notable exception to this rule, it is when race is involved. Federal supreme court can get involved if racially motivated gerrymandering (as there is a federal law around racial gerrymandering) is occurring.
If we assume the current maps are biased in favor of the Republicans, and the state supreme court becomes biased toward the Democrats, nothing prevents them from approving a new map proposed by the legislature that favors the Democrats.
How to fix it
There have been many proposals for fixing gerrymandering. Throughout the process, some bias is inevitably introduced, whether intentional or not.
Some states use independent commissions of non-partisan groups. However, even individuals not involved in politics tend to have some bias. The federal government could pass legislation setting specific rules for electoral districts.
An interesting idea is to develop an algorithm to draw the boundaries—a set of defined rules that a computer follows precisely, eliminating bias.
Gerrymandering has undoubtedly affected every election since its inception with Elbridge Gerry and the salamander-shaped district. Whether its impact has been sufficient to alter results is debatable, but it’s certainly plausible. It will remain an issue until effective solutions are implemented.