,
7 tweets,
3 min read
Read on Twitter
The #Gerrymandering decision from the #SupremeCourt still stings. The level of polarization in our politics and the lack of true representation in Congress (and many states) is on account of #Gerrymandering. Thread below. denverpost.com/2019/06/27/col…
In our brief, we made the case for judicial oversight of extreme partisan gerrymandering: “Deliberately drawing districts for the purpose of keeping one party in power for the long term, and without any neutral justification for the result, has no place in our political system.”
The consequences of #Gerrymandering are dire--“It discourages voter participation, increases distrust of government, and reduces the responsiveness of elected representatives.”
As for other ways to end #Gerrymandering, there are some states like #Colorado that have acted. In our case, we developed a collaborative solution and went to the ballot to adopt a non-partisan districting commission. But most states have polarized, gerrymandered legislatures.
In the case of gerrymandered legislatures, they are very unlikely to undo the source of their partisan advantage. And because many states lack a direct initiative process, the only way to undo that entrenched extreme partisan gerrymander would be judicial review.
The conclusion that reviewing extreme partisan gerrymanders is a "political question" and beyond the Court's capabilities defies over 50 years of history. Since 1962, the Supreme Court has reviewed districting decisions.
Most famously, in service of our commitment to representative government, the Supreme Court has enforced "the one person, one vote" doctrine. The ruling in this week's case contradicts that history and calls into question whether the Court has the ability to manage that doctrine.
