Favorite

Legal gerrymander 

click to enlarge guest1-1.jpg

As the so-called "Fayetteville finger" redistricting plan has gathered steam in the state legislature, some — most prominently GOP state chair Doyle Webb — have suggested that they will consider taking such an obvious political gerrymander to court. They'd be smart not to waste any energy on it.

In a 2004 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court essentially closed the door to lawsuits questioning the constitutionality of partisan redistricts (a tradition as old as the Republic). That precedent, Vieth v. Jubelirer, would drive any Arkansas case. The Vieth case emanated out of an aggressive gerrymander after the 2000 census by the Republican-controlled state legislature of Pennsylvania's congressional districts. Because the state was losing seats in Congress, the use of new technological mapping tools and the strategic pitting of Democratic incumbents against each other meant major gains for the GOP in the immediate aftermath of the redistricting. Democrats in the state cried foul and, specifically, cried that their Equal Protection rights had been violated.

The Democratic plaintiffs in the Vieth case had some hope that the Supreme Court would see things their way because of a 1986 Indiana case in which a majority on the Supreme Court had said that partisan gerrymandering did indeed raise Equal Protection concerns. Even more important, the Court majority in the Indiana case (Davis v. Bandemer) dramatically shifted from previous courts in saying that the issue was not inherently a "political question" (that is, an issue to be dealt with by elected bodies and not by courts). Thus, the Davis court gave a green light to Equal Protection litigation when persistent, aggressive partisan gerrymandering could be shown. Reformers hoped that when an aggressive gerrymander, like that in Pennsylvania, came to the Court, a new day would dawn and partisan gerrymandering would go the way of districts where urban voters were undervalued and districts driven by racial considerations.

All the justices in the Vieth case bemoaned the ugliness of the politics that had driven the redistricting process and four liberal justices actually said that the plan was unconstitutional, with different logic driving their separate decisions.

But, the decisive justices in the Vieth case said that there was simply no usable rule that could be established for gauging where partisanship in districting is bad enough to be unconstitutional. Justice Kennedy—in his usual role in the middle on the Court—said that he'd be open to such a rule being established in the future but had little hope that it could happen.

Congressional redistricting can't violate the "one-person, one-vote" rule laid down by the Supreme Court in the 1960s. And, those plans can't be driven by considerations of race or ethnicity that favor either the majority or the minority.

But, when it comes to partisan politics, the Constitution ultimately doesn't come into play. As Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in Vieth:

"Is the regular insertion of the judiciary into districting, with the delay and uncertainty that brings to the political process and the partisan enmity it brings upon the courts, worth the benefit to be achieved ... ? We think not."

The best way for Arkansas's Republicans to reshape district lines in their favor is to win control of state government by the time the next redistricting process takes place. (A more complex issue is whether they could do that before the next census, as the Texas legislature—driven by House Majority Leader Tom Delay—did in the middle part of the last decade.) For this is an area where elections truly have consequences.

Jay Barth is M.E. and Ima Graves Peace Distinguished Professor of Politics Chair of the Department of Politics and International Relations Director of Civic Engagement Projects at Hendrix College.

FAYETTEVILLE FINGER: A Democratic congressional redistricting plan that expands the 4th District by running a finger of land up to Fayetteville has riled Republicans. Below, an expert explains why "gerrymanders" drawn for political reasons are legal.

Favorite

From the ArkTimes store

Tags:

Comments

Subscribe to this thread:

Add a comment

More by Jay Barth

  • GOP health care

    There is this little thing called the Affordable Care Act that screams "danger ahead" for Republicans in Arkansas.
    • Mar 9, 2017
  • Arkansas voters know what they want

    With a surprisingly strong vote, 53 percent of Arkansas's voters said last Nov. 8 that they wanted to bring medical marijuana to the state.
    • Feb 23, 2017
  • Resist Gorsuch

    Barring the bizarre, Judge Neil Gorsuch will become one of the nine members of the U.S. Supreme Court by the time the court reconvenes for its new term in October.
    • Feb 9, 2017
  • More »

Readers also liked…

  • Seven

    The controversy over the Ten Commandments monument on the Capitol lawn just won't go away.
    • Feb 9, 2017
  • Why a change of leadership at the LRSD now?

    Johnny Key's abrupt, unilateral decision to not renew Baker Kurrus' contract as superintendent strikes us as shortsighted, misguided and detrimental to the education of our children and the health of our community.
    • Apr 21, 2016
  • Schlafly's influence

    Phyllis Schlafly, mother, attorney and longtime antifeminist, died recently. What Schlafly promoted was not novel or new. Men had been saying that men and women were not equal for years. However, anti-feminism, anti-women language had much more power coming from a woman who professed to be looking out for the good of all women and families.
    • Sep 15, 2016

Most Shared

Latest in Guest Writer

  • Seven

    The controversy over the Ten Commandments monument on the Capitol lawn just won't go away.
    • Feb 9, 2017
  • No relief for renters

    If you are hoping to see new laws that improve rights for people who rent homes or apartments in Arkansas, you will find disappointing two bills proposed so far this legislative session — SB 25, by Sen. Blake Johnson (R-Corning), and HB 1166, by Rep. Laurie Rushing (R-Hot Springs). Even if both bills become statute, Arkansas would still have the worst landlord tenant laws in the country.
    • Feb 2, 2017
  • Let them eat cake

    An unproductive and harmful bill attempting to curb obesity passed easily out of committee last week at the state legislature. House Bill 1035 attempts to address this serious public health issue by preventing poor families who rely on SNAP (the federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, formerly called food stamps) from purchasing certain items such as candy and sodas.
    • Jan 26, 2017
  • More »

Visit Arkansas

Brant Collins named Group Travel Manager for Arkansas Department of Parks and Tourism

Brant Collins named Group Travel Manager for Arkansas Department of Parks and Tourism

Collins to work toward increasing visitation to Arkansas by groups and promoting the state's appeal

Event Calendar

« »

March

S M T W T F S
  1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31  

Most Recent Comments

  • Re: More on pits

    • " ... people are laughing," oh thank you ever so - I do want people…

    • on March 29, 2017
  • Re: More on pits

    • "investigator of both sides": I prize a good dog over a smart-mouthed fool any day…

    • on March 29, 2017
  • Re: More on pits

    • So pit bulls do not kill or main humans, their owners do. Sounds just like…

    • on March 29, 2017
 

© 2017 Arkansas Times | 201 East Markham, Suite 200, Little Rock, AR 72201
Powered by Foundation