William_T._Bianco,_David_T._Canon]_American_Polit

392 Chapter 11 | Congress

Partisan Redistricting

Partisan redistricting is the redrawing of legislative district

lines in a way that gives one party an advantage. As we have

noted, until recently the courts allowed the practice as a normal

part of politics: of course, the majority party that controls the

redistricting process has tried to stack the deck in its favor.

When combined with the reluctance of the Supreme Court to

address “political questions”—those that are better left to the

elected branches—there was a powerful incentive to stay out of

the “political thicket.”a But as mapping software and “big data”

political tools became readily available, the extent of partisan

bias in redistricting became more pronounced. In Pennsylvania,

a Republican gerrymander gave the party 13 of the state’s

18 U.S. House seats, despite the Republicans’ failure to win a

majority of the statewide vote in the House races. In Maryland, a

Democratic gerrymander turned a safe Republican House seat

into a Democratic seat. Should this practice be reined in by the

Court? Is it fair that some votes seem to count more than others?

Redistricting is always partisan. Those who say that

the courts should stay out of redistricting argue that the prac-

tice is inherently partisan. The majority party will always try

to solidify or expand its power when it has the opportunity.

This has been true since the earliest years of our nation. Fur-

thermore, those on this side of the argument say that courts

are not well suited to draw legislative maps; this responsibility

should remain with the state legislatures.

A second line of argument concedes that the process

has gotten a little out of hand, but contends that the

TAKE

A S TA N D

standard for redistricting should be partisan neutrality

rather than partisan fairness. That is, rather than trying to

make sure that the votes for candidates of one party have

the same collective impact on the outcome of elections as

the votes for the other party (fairness), the redistricting

process should simply ignore partisanship (neutrality).

Partisan redistricting undermines democracy. The

other side of the debate counters that just because we have

always had partisan gerrymandering doesn’t make it right.

Indeed, democracy means that voters should be able to choose

their representatives, not the other way around. Because pol-

iticians have a self-interest in maintaining their political power

and will work to further this self-interest through redistricting,

unfairly drawn districts undermine democratic accountability.

The strategy of emphasizing neutrality instead of

fairness in redistricting is plausible, but does not convince

those who support this side of the argument. While it is true

that Republicans would continue to have some advantage

in most states if districts were neutrally drawn, it is possible

to draw maps that follow traditional districting principles

but also promote partisan fairness.

As noted on page 390, the Supreme Court declined to rule

on the constitutionality of partisan gerrymandering in 2018 and

will probably have to revisit this issue before the 2020 elections.

take a stand

1. If you were a Supreme Court justice, how would you have
   ruled in the Wisconsin and Maryland cases? Should par-
   tisan redistricting be limited?


2. Is the appropriate standard for evaluating a legislative
   map partisan neutrality or partisan fairness? Or should
   the courts stay out of redistricting entirely?

Maryland’s 6th congressional district. Pennsylvania’s 7th congressional district from 2011 map.

Full_12_APT_64431_ch11_374-417.indd 392 16/11/18 10:30 AM