OK. But isn't the Supreme Court the last protector of citizens' rights? And isn't the right to vote a very fundamental right that should not be subject to the abrogation of that right by the party that happens to be in power?
What is most chilling of all is the realization that there's nowhere to appeal the Supreme Court's decision. Except, of course, the people themselves and their elected representatives -- who could theoretically pass a law that would take care of this. In effect, that's what SCOTUS is saying is the proper remedy.
But then we're asking a party that happens to be in the majority to pass a law that weakens their own power. Frankly, we the people are just not that mature, especially in our present bitter divisiveness.
Chris Cillizza, writing for CNN, explains just what the court decided and what the results will be, even if he doesn't make me feel any better about the future under this ruling.
* * * * *
"Armed with a five to four conservative majority thanks to President Donald Trump's appointment of Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh . . . the Supreme Court said it had no role to play in partisan gerrymandering -- a decision that amounts to a massive political victory for Republicans, not just in the moment, but also likely for the next decade-plus.
"While the court didn't give Republican everything they wanted on Thursday -- rejecting the addition of a citizenship question to the census that the Trump administration had pushed for -- the ruling on line-drawing with political concerns as a primary motivation is an absolute game-changer for a party that has already reaped the considerable rewards of its ongoing domination at the state legislative level.
"What SCOTUS said Thursday was, essentially, if state legislators want to draw the lines of their own districts and those of their members of Congress using political calculations, it's not the court's job to stop them. That state legislatures are given that power and can exert it as they see fit.
"On its face, this ruling impacts both parties equally. After all, both parties have shown a willingness over the last several decades to push their partisan advantage in the decennial line-drawing process. And the cases on which the court ruled on Thursday involved one Democratic gerrymander (Maryland) and one Republican (North Carolina).
"But, to see things through that this-hurts-both-sides-equally frame is to miss the forest for the trees. Thanks to avalanche elections in their favor in 2010 and 2014, Republicans have an absolute stranglehold on the state governments.
"According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, Republicans currently have full control over 30 of the 49 partisan legislatures in the country. . . . In most of the large populations states where seats are expected to be gained or lost -- Republicans have total control, and large enough majorities that should insulate that control barring a massive Democratic landslide in 2020. . . .
"Now, there's no question that Republicans -- thanks to the gains they made in 2010 -- have . . . already squeezed a lot of juice from the gerrymandering fruit, and its not clear how much is left.
"And there will likely be a renewed push . . . by Democrats and election reform types to pass laws that take the line-drawing out of the hands of state legislators and give that power to independent/bipartisan/nonpartisan commissions.
"But, in order for those sorts of efforts to work, state legislators have to willingly give up a huge bit of political power. And politicians -- of either party -- are not big on that sort of thing.
"Make no mistake: The Supreme Court's ruling on partisan gerrymandering is a massive moment in electoral politics. It could very well help Reupblicans retake control of the US House as soon as 2022 and, if the party plays things smartly over the next two years, could well put them in position to hold that majority for much of the next decade."
* * * * *
So that is already one hugely significant result of Donald Trump's reshaping the federal judicial makeup. And I'm disappointed that Chief Justice John Roberts joined the conservative majority in this decision, rather than playing the Justice Anthony Kennedy role of swing vote to keep the court in a more centrist position.
Let's look again at what the court is saying. They are maintaining that it is just not the job of the court to do what the legislative bodies can and should do for themselves. But while straining at the gnats of such a principle, it seems to me that they are ignoring the dragon: that is, the effect on voting rights. Anything that dilutes the one-person/one-vote principle seems wrong to me.
And that is exactly what gerrymandering does. It is a deliberate effort to make some votes count more than others, whether the underlying purpose is partisan or racial or any other reason. There should be no reason for anyone's vote to count more than anyone else's vote.
If it's not the court's business to safe-guard that, then why don't we just let the Russians and the Chinese, and whoever else wants to, come in and pick our next president? Or maybe they will do that anyway with technology.
Ralph
No comments:
Post a Comment