On Wednesday, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in a possibly historic Germandering case, and if you've been following the redistribution of news at all, you might think the Republican line drawing is in court.
From North Carolina to Wisconsin After Pennsylvania, Republicans have recently been tried in court for drawing up congressional and parliamentary decrees that, in the courts' view, have unfairly sorted electorate or electorate into districts. The following court decisions have helped Democrats the most, which is very helpful for this party as it tries to retake the House of Representatives in November.
But Wednesday sees the Democrats' open draw in a fashion that could reshape how both parties draw maps after the 2020 census. As Robert Barnes of the Post Office explains, former Democratic Governor Maryland Governor Martin O Malley said Democrats were lining up to increase their Congressional majority from 6 out of 8 to 7 out of 8 seats. "Yes, that was clearly my intention" O & # 39; Malley said in a transcript last spring.
That's how things have worked for decades. But the Supreme Court seems to have seriously considered making overtly partisan germandeming, such as what happened in Maryland for the first time.
The court has long been open to the idea that taking sides in drawing cards could be unconstitutional. But former judges could not agree on an objective method of measuring dissent, said Rick Pildes, a New York University law reformer, when he spoke with The Fix in January. Some speakers believe O & # 39; Malley's frank reception could be the turning point that the Supreme Court needs to intervene.
The court also heard a case in Wisconsin in October that called on Republicans to present state legislatures as partisan. So far no decision has been made. And in Pennsylvania, the State Supreme Court threw out the entire district card and gave it what it called more equitable lines. This could reach as many as half a dozen Congressional seats to the Democrats in November.
While it was mainly republican line drawings, it is not because Republicans are scientifically more gerrymanders than democrats.
It's just a reflection on who was in power in the states that drew the legislation after the 201
The theory is, "Whoever is in power becomes Gerrymander," and that is underlined by this case in Maryland. In the 80s and 90s, Democratic California was considered the country's most aggressive germanmanded map.
The fact that both parties are gerrymander is important to note, as the pendulum of the line drawing swings a bit more towards democrats all these recent court cases.
Prior to the post-2020 census drawing process, Democrats are investing millions to persuade courts to redraw cards, or at least to elect Democratic governors in November, who can veto Republicans. Drawn cards and send the process to the court. This strategy is already working, the last example being Virginia, where a Democratic governor won in November.
In a meeting with reporters In February, Democratic governors set their new focus on republican gerrymandering as one Way to fight to achieve more democratic representation, rather than bring their party to the power of card-making.
"It's not about our desire to manipulate the map," Connecticut Gov. Dannel Malloy said.
But if harassed, these Democratic governors would not commit themselves to supporting independent redistricting commissions, or another kind of impartial process if they get the card-drawing power after the 2020 census.
That's because, if you have the pencil in your hand and have the chance to lock your party in power for a decade, "that's a temptation that most politicians find they could not avoid," said Pildes 9017] But when courts begin to punish extreme partisan gerrymandering, it is possible in the near future that both parties must avoid this temptation.