ON OCTOBER 3rd, the Supreme Court considered an age-old and now technologically refined scourge of electoral politics known as gerrymandering—the practice by which state legislators of one party delineate contorted district lines to entrench their power and rope out rivals. The term, coined in the early 19th century, mixes “salamander”— the shape of some districts after redrawing—and “Gerry” after the governor (Elridge Gerry) who in 1812 signed a bill redistricting Massachusetts to benefit his party. Gill v Whitford concerns precision-engineered legislative maps in Wisconsin, districts no one stood up to defend on the merits. Even Justice Samuel Alito, a sure vote to uphold the skewed maps, said that gerrymandering is “distasteful”. The central question on the justices’ minds was whether courts are equipped to police the process by which states draw their maps, and if so, how exactly they should determine when draughtsmen cross a line.
Two worries about the state of American democracy—one...Continue reading
Source: United States http://ift.tt/2xeqEyz
EmoticonEmoticon