On June 15, some Democratic voters in Pennsylvania, plus the League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania, filed a lawsuit in state court, alleging that the U.S. House districts in Pennsylvania since 2011 constitute an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander. The case is based on both the U.S. constitution and the Pennsylvania constitution. League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania v Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Commonwealth Court. Here is the Complaint. Thanks to Rick Hasen for the link.
This has been tried before, and the previous lawsuit lost. Sure, it’s possible to argue now that the 2011 map is “worse” than the 2001 map which had been upheld, and maybe that will make a difference to Justice Kennedy, the “swing vote,” but I’m not going to hold my breath.
We need to adopt a constitutional amendment that prevents gerrymandering instead of continuing to “rely” on the unpredictable whims of Justice Kennedy. By preventing gerrymandering, I mean that we need a rule that all states must use independent redistricting commissions, and maybe even require that such commissions use algorithms as the root of the process.
This is a direct consequence of the SCOTUS’ moronic insistence on precise population equality and application of the VRA to redistricting.
Gerrymandering could be minimized if large, multi-member districts were based solely on existing county and/or municipal boundaries. It’s even possible to do this mathematically. For instance, the US Congress apportions itself among the states by a mathematical formula every 10 years. The states should then dispense with creating single-member districts, and elect their representative to Congress at-large. Minority candidates (either ethnic or political) would have a fairer chance in at at-large election if approval or proportional voting methods were used.
Gerrymandering would be minimized if single-member district based largely on counties were used, and the VRA did not apply to redistricting. Congress requires use of single-member districts.
The SCOTUS in ‘Wesberry v Sanders’ adopted as a requirement that districts be as “nearly equal as practicable” but as Justice Harlan pointed out the court did not deign to define that term. It had been used in prior congressional apportionment laws in the late 19th and early 20th century, but the states did not split counties, except in extreme cases such as New York, Philadelphia, and Chicago. Congress could have required more precise equality, but did not, and accepted the elected representatives from those districts.
Since then increasing bizarre districts have been created using the excuse that the districts have to be precisely equal in population. A nice touch in the plaintiff’s complaint in Pennsylvania case is noting that one district threads its way through an endoscopy center (“you will hardly feel this, and its for your own good”)