Gill v. Whitford has drawn so much attention to the constitutionality of gerrymandering and the Supreme Court's role in slowing or stopping this gerrymandering that 54 friend-of-the-court briefs totaling one thousand pages have been written on behalf of constitutional lawyers, historians, party elders, social scientists, and a neuroscientist. The basis of Gill v. Whitford is simple: Following Republicans' 2010 midterm triumph, Republican mapmakers and strategists utilized advanced computer models and voting data to determine Assembly party lines. Cementing Republican control over the Assembly solidified the party's national political grip. The argument against this strategic redistricting is based on a 1964 Supreme Court ruling that mandates each district to have an approximately equal number of people. Thus, "packing" voters into specific districts violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Nevertheless, experts are torn on how SCOTUS will react to the Wisconsin map and respond to the issue.
1) How do you think SCOTUS will/should approach the issue of gerrymandering?
2) Should the federal government take control of the redistricting process completely?
3) What does gerrymandering say about the state of U.S. democracy today?
I firmly do believe that the federal government should take control of this action. Republicans have clearly over-abused gerrymandering leading to an undemocratic government. However, this represents a bigger of the United States government: the politicians pick the voters. Since individual partisan has only been getting stronger and with the advanced technology we have today, it is super for politicians to redistrict to their benefit.
ReplyDeleteGerrymandering was developed to aid one political party and that is the way it is being used today, but to an extreme. As a result, the gerrymandering of today shows that the US has extreme partisanship. As we approach the 2020 census and election, the stakes will be even higher. With another 10 years of cracking and packing sure to follow, the subsequent fight over the ability to re-draw district lines will further divide our country.
ReplyDeleteThe extreme extent of gerrymandering today shows that politicians are more concerned with gaining power than representing the constituents. I think the SCOTUS will combat this issue by first revisiting the 1964 court case that said the goal of redistricting was “fair and effective representation for all citizens," and actually define "clear, manageable and politically neutral standards" that will explicitly state how to decide if partisanship is unfair, thereby limiting gerrymandering.
ReplyDelete-Clare Lei
The federal government should not take full control of redistricting, because there is a greater chance of party loyalty and bias influencing the process. Redistricting should be delegated to an impartial third-party. When scouting for this third party, the government should thoroughly assess whether or not the company is truly impartial. Fortunately, with recent advances in technology, computers may be the most accurate way of assessing population density and could be used to make impartial maps.
ReplyDeleteYes the Supreme court should definitely get involved in this issue, along taking control of all redristicing. The idea of gerrymandering is to unevenly portion a states distrcits for one party. The distrcits should not be portioned by political population (Ideas withheld in an area) but overall size in an area. The idea that parties today attempt to gerrymander districts, emphasizes party corruption to stay in power and that the peoples voice does not matter over a parties desire to be in power.
ReplyDeleteWhile I believe that the Supreme Court will get involved in the issue, I do not see them having much effect on current gerrymandering practices. Gerrymandering has been practiced for much of U.S. history, and thus does not seem to be going away soon. Moreover, since the majority of the youth population does not have too much knowledge about U.S. politics, not much pressure will come from the voting population. Gerrymandering will continue to be an issue as long as people do not take action in preventing its use. As a result I believe the ruling will not be called against gerrymandering in Wisconsin
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, the concept of gerrymandering is quite contradictory to the principal of Democracy. Gerrymandering is a prime example of inequality, something in opposition to what our country was built on. In order to incorporate equality into the redistricting process, the federal government does, in fact, need to take control.
ReplyDeleteGerrymandering completely goes against all the democratic ideals that the United States were built upon. At this point, considering the extreme extent to which it has gone to, gerrymandering should most certainly be regulated by the federal government in order to restore an equal and fair election process.
ReplyDeleteGerrymandering has created this big issue of unequal representation and ever since the United States government was established our main ideals were to have a democracy and be a republic. Because no effective solution has been put in place to solve the problem of gerrymandering, I think it is time for the Federal Government to intervene.
ReplyDelete1. SCOTUS should approach gerrymandering with more consideration of disproportioned states. The issue of oddly shaped states has become a way to loosely draw states to certain parties and a way SCOTUS can help this issue is of considering more precision through geometry to achieve more constitutionally fit districts.
ReplyDeleteSCOTUS should set a precedent on how to handle the extremity of gerrymandering. However, the federal government should not be responsible for implementing or executing this court order. Instead they should delegate this power to an impartial third party. Ultimately, whichever party is control of the government at the time of gerrymandering will most likely be biased and redistrict in their favor.
ReplyDelete