RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Millhiser writes: "Let's talk about a few datapoints that, on the surface, have nothing to do with the Supreme Court - but that in reality could determine whose ox is gored by two upcoming partisan gerrymandering decisions."

Brett Kavanaugh. (photo: REX/Shutterstock)
Brett Kavanaugh. (photo: REX/Shutterstock)


How Republicans' Zeal for Gerrymandering Could Blow Up in Their Faces

By Ian Millhiser, ThinkProgress

11 June 19

 

et’s talk about a few datapoints that, on the surface, have nothing to do with the Supreme Court — but that in reality could determine whose ox is gored by two upcoming partisan gerrymandering decisions.

The first is a recent Ipsos poll showing that President Donald Trump only receives between 36 and 38 percent of the vote against any of the Democrats named in that poll. Against former Vice President Joe Biden, the current frontrunner in the Democratic primary, Trump loses 50-36. And, while the Ipsos poll shows Trump performing worse than some others, the Real Clear Politics polling average shows Biden winning by more than eight points.

Meanwhile, 3-month U.S. Treasury bonds recently started producing a higher yield than 10-year bonds. This phenomenon, known as a “yield curve inversion,” occurs when investors believe that the economy’s long term prospects bode ill, and so are willing to accept a lower rate of return for one of the safest investments on the planet — a long-term U.S. government bond.

Yield curve inversions are often harbingers of recession.

Trump, in other words, could have to campaign with no major policy accomplishments besides a tax giveaway to the very rich, and he may need to do so while the economy is falling apart. Meanwhile, polls already suggest he’s an underdog, even with a fairly strong economy at the moment.

Which brings us back to Rucho v. Common Cause and Lamone v. Benisek, the two Supreme Court cases challenging partisan gerrymandering.

Hit by a wave

The thing about gerrymandering is that, barring a well-timed electoral wave, it tends to perpetuate itself. Virginia’s House of Delegates is so rigidly gerrymandered to benefit Republicans that Democratic candidates won the statewide popular vote by more than 9 percentage points in 2017, yet Republicans kept a narrow majority in the statehouse. In Wisconsin, Democratic candidates won 54% of the popular vote in the 2018 state assembly races, yet Republicans control an astounding 63% of the assembly seats.

Thus, unless Democrats win the states of Virginia and Wisconsin in a crushing tidal wave that washes Republicans into the sea, the GOP will likely control the Virginia House of Delegates and the Wisconsin state assembly in 2020, when new maps must be drawn.

But early polling data suggests that such a wave is possible in 2020, as under-performing presidential candidates tend to drag down their entire party. And if 2020 is a recession year, a Democratic wave might be inevitable.

Up until this point, the Supreme Court’s Republicans have been quite hostile to partisan gerrymandering challenges — although, oddly enough, Brett Kavanaugh appeared more open to these challenges than his four Republican colleagues during oral arguments last March. The smart money suggests that the court will split 5-4 along party lines, quite possibly holding that federal courts aren’t even allowed to consider partisan gerrymandering cases.

That would be the wrong answer under the law — the First Amendment prohibits viewpoint discrimination, and gerrymandering is a way of discriminating against voters based on their support for one party or the other. But it’s easy to see why Republicans would want such a result. After all, Republicans walloped Democrats in 2010, the last redistricting year. And, if 2020 is an ordinary election, Republicans are likely to emerge from it well-positioned to keep their gerrymanders in place.

But if 2020 is a Democratic wave election, Kavanaugh and his fellow partisans may come to regret taking partisan gerrymandering challenges off the table. After ten years of watching Republicans win elections regardless of what the voters preferred, Democrats are not likely to be in a conciliatory mood in 2020. If they trounce the GOP, Democrats will undoubtedly use their new legislative power to draw the most spiteful, meticulously gerrymandered maps the nation has ever seen.

Meanwhile, it is likely that any Republican on the Supreme Court could prevent such an outcome by joining with their Democratic colleagues to declare partisan gerrymandering unconstitutional.

The death of neutrality

The flip-side of this argument is that it is an open question whether Democrats should want this Supreme Court to hand down a decision striking down gerrymandering. That’s not just because Democrats may stand to unfairly benefit from gerrymandering, but because a Republican Supreme Court could potentially apply an anti-gerrymandering precedent selectively to benefit the GOP.

“When, in writing for the majority of the Court, I adopt a general rule, and say, ‘This is the basis of our decision,’” the late Justice Antonin Scalia once warned, “I not only constrain lower courts, I constrain myself as well.” That’s because “if the next case should have such different facts that my political or policy preferences regarding the outcome are quite the opposite, I will be unable to indulge those preferences.”

That’s an accurate description of how judges should behave, but it’s hardly an accurate description of how this Supreme Court does behave. One of the most important principles in any system of law is equal justice under the law. If the Supreme Court holds that a certain kind of speech is protected by the First Amendment, it should apply that rule equally to Democrats and Republicans. If it holds that the Constitution protects religious liberty, it must protect Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, and Satanists in exactly the same way.

But that’s sure not how this Supreme Court has behaved. Just compare its decision to tie the law in knots, in order to protect a conservative Christian baker who doesn’t want to obey civil rights laws, with its decision upholding Trump’s Muslim ban. Or it’s decision refusing to grant relief to a Muslim inmate who wanted to be executed with his imam present — in an Alabama prison that permitted Christian inmates to have a Christian chaplain present.

The danger of a decision striking down partisan gerrymanders, in other words, is that this Supreme Court could very well apply such a decision only to Democratic gerrymanders, while leaving Republicans free to run roughshod over democracy.

Email This Page

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 

Comments   

A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

 
+18 # librarian1984 2019-06-11 16:12
So 1) it's great we're going to have a recession because it will hurt Trump's reelection bid, and 2) it's never too early to talk horse race, and 3) we don't really want the SC to strike down gerrymandering because if there's a recession which leads to a D-wave then we might want to use it ourselves? Who IS this guy? Wasn't there a good Intercept article available?

Btw, the Democrats COULD win in gerrymander-pro of landslides if they returned to their roots and offered to fight for healthcare, living wages, free public college, etc.
 
 
0 # Robbee 2019-06-12 09:06
Quoting librarian1984 2019-06-11 16:12:
So 1) it's great we're going to have a recession because it will hurt Trump's reelection bid, and 2) it's never too early to talk horse race, and 3) we don't really want the SC to strike down gerrymandering because if there's a recession which leads to a D-wave then we might want to use it ourselves? Who IS this guy? Wasn't there a good Intercept article available?

Btw, the Democrats COULD win in gerrymander-proof landslides if they returned to their roots and offered to fight for healthcare, living wages, free public college, etc.

- well put! besides! -

1) dickhead more-fully politicized the fed reserve, that will do all it can to deliver dickhead a good economy, at least until nov. 2020 and

2) against a dem wave, gerrymandering and voter suppression may be our solidly-repuke scotus's seeond-last line of defense
 
 
+3 # WorkingClass 2019-06-12 09:42
Librarian1984 - I gave you a thumbs up based on my overall agreement with your last sentence. Having said that, I read the article somewhat differently than you. Definitely not saying my understanding of what Millhiser is stating is correct and yours in not. But when I read the article I didn't come away with the idea the author was promoting any side of the argument over gerrymandering cases before the US Supreme Court. Rather I thought he was just outlining the various possible outcomes - giving the reader food for thought and an understanding of, at least his prediction, of the possible impacts or outcomes.
 
 
+3 # LionMousePudding 2019-06-12 00:43
NO. NO. NO. NO. NO.

This is not a race to the bottom.

We must not only redraw districts completely honestly and fairly, but also encode the process into law.

This idea disgusts me that we should stoop to the treacherous level of the GOP. Is there to be no difference between the parties?
 
 
+2 # ktony 2019-06-12 05:50
"Who IS this guy? Wasn't there a good Intercept article available?"
Think Progress is a DNC mouthpiece.
 
 
+4 # kath 2019-06-12 07:07
a tidal wave that sweeps Republicans into the sea sounds pretty good to me. Sadly, the DNC will probably find a way to screw it up.
 
 
+2 # elizabethblock 2019-06-12 07:54
I would prefer the Democrats NOT to gerrymander worse than the Republicans. For one thing, what goes around comes around. For another, it's immoral, whether or not it's illegal (or fattening).
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN