The Maryland State Capitol building, in Annapolis. The Washington Post has called Maryland "comically gerrymandered" and labeled its congressional districts "highly partisan and racially charged."
(Photo: Jimmy Emerson, DVM/flickr/cc)
Aug 25, 2016
On Wednesday, a panel of federal judges advanced what an expert says could be "the biggest gerrymandering case in a generation." This case could have nationwide implications for elections and democracy across the United States.
The three-judge court ruled 2-1 (pdf) that the First Amendment-based claim against partisan gerrymandering in Maryland's sixth congressional district is valid and may proceed to summary judgment or trial. The ruling has no bearing on voting this November, and a decision would apply only to future elections.
"Today's decision is another victory for voters and their right to choose their legislators rather than allowing legislators to choose their voters."
--Karen Hobart Flynn, Common Cause
The case, brought by American University law student Steve Shapiro, argues that Maryland's congressional district map, drawn by Democratic lawmakers following the 2010 Census, violated the rights of 6th District Republican voters to political association and expression.
But as the case has the potential to set a national precedent restricting partisan gerrymandering, it moving forward is "excellent news for both Democrats and democracy because of how widespread Republican gerrymandering is nationwide," Daily Kos contributing editor Stephen Wolf wrote Wednesday.
Indeed, the Washington Postreported:
Michael Kimberly, Shapiro's attorney, said that if his client prevails at trial, and the case ends up back in the Supreme Court, it could eventually bring sweeping changes to redistricting across the country.
"This could be the biggest gerrymandering case in a generation," Kimberly said. "It could have enormous impact."
As North Carolina's News & Observer wrote earlier this month:
Opinions by U.S. Supreme Court justices, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Anthony Kennedy in particular, have suggested that they believe partisan gerrymandering is a problem, [Common Cause North Carolina executive director Bob] Phillips said.
"Partisanship might be the next frontier for redistricting cases," said Wendy Underhill, director of the Elections and Redistricting Program for the National Conference of State Legislatures.
Of the prospect of a Supreme Court decision in the Maryland case, Wolf wrote: "Such a ruling could have enormous effects since 55 percent of congressional districts are currently drawn to favor Republicans while just 10 percent were designed for Democrats--particularly when the current partisan and institutional balance of power significantly constrains anti-gerrymandering efforts at the legislative level."
Karen Hobart Flynn, president of the pro-democracy group Common Cause, wrote an op-ed earlier this month stating that "gerrymandering pits political power against the people, regardless of which party holds power."
On Wednesday, in response to the judge's ruling, Hobart Flynn added: "Today's decision is another victory for voters and their right to choose their legislators rather than allowing legislators to choose their voters. Partisan gerrymanders strip citizens of the ability to elect the candidates of their choice, and that is why Common Cause is fighting this gerrymander by Democrats in Maryland and why we have brought suit challenging a blatant partisan gerrymander perpetrated by Republicans in North Carolina."
Common Cause brought the North Carolina lawsuit in early August. It argues that the legislature's gerrymandering clearly violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
"What is at stake is whether politicians have the power to manipulate voting maps to unjustly insulate themselves from accountability, or whether voters have the fundamental right as Americans to choose their representatives in fair and open elections," Phillips said upon filing suit. "We believe this is a vital case that could strike at the very foundation of gerrymandering."
An Unconstitutional Rampage
Trump and Musk are on an unconstitutional rampage, aiming for virtually every corner of the federal government. These two right-wing billionaires are targeting nurses, scientists, teachers, daycare providers, judges, veterans, air traffic controllers, and nuclear safety inspectors. No one is safe. The food stamps program, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are next. It’s an unprecedented disaster and a five-alarm fire, but there will be a reckoning. The people did not vote for this. The American people do not want this dystopian hellscape that hides behind claims of “efficiency.” Still, in reality, it is all a giveaway to corporate interests and the libertarian dreams of far-right oligarchs like Musk. Common Dreams is playing a vital role by reporting day and night on this orgy of corruption and greed, as well as what everyday people can do to organize and fight back. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover issues the corporate media never will, but we can only continue with our readers’ support. |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Deirdre Fulton
Deirdre Fulton is a former Common Dreams senior editor and staff writer. Previously she worked as an editor and writer for the Portland Phoenix and the Boston Phoenix, where she was honored by the New England Press Association and the Association of Alternative Newsweeklies. A Boston University graduate, Deirdre is a co-founder of the Maine-based Lorem Ipsum Theater Collective and the PortFringe theater festival. She writes young adult fiction in her spare time.
anthony kennedycommon causedemocracyequal protection clausefirst amendmentgerrymanderingmarylandruth bader ginsburgus supreme courtvoting rights
On Wednesday, a panel of federal judges advanced what an expert says could be "the biggest gerrymandering case in a generation." This case could have nationwide implications for elections and democracy across the United States.
The three-judge court ruled 2-1 (pdf) that the First Amendment-based claim against partisan gerrymandering in Maryland's sixth congressional district is valid and may proceed to summary judgment or trial. The ruling has no bearing on voting this November, and a decision would apply only to future elections.
"Today's decision is another victory for voters and their right to choose their legislators rather than allowing legislators to choose their voters."
--Karen Hobart Flynn, Common Cause
The case, brought by American University law student Steve Shapiro, argues that Maryland's congressional district map, drawn by Democratic lawmakers following the 2010 Census, violated the rights of 6th District Republican voters to political association and expression.
But as the case has the potential to set a national precedent restricting partisan gerrymandering, it moving forward is "excellent news for both Democrats and democracy because of how widespread Republican gerrymandering is nationwide," Daily Kos contributing editor Stephen Wolf wrote Wednesday.
Indeed, the Washington Postreported:
Michael Kimberly, Shapiro's attorney, said that if his client prevails at trial, and the case ends up back in the Supreme Court, it could eventually bring sweeping changes to redistricting across the country.
"This could be the biggest gerrymandering case in a generation," Kimberly said. "It could have enormous impact."
As North Carolina's News & Observer wrote earlier this month:
Opinions by U.S. Supreme Court justices, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Anthony Kennedy in particular, have suggested that they believe partisan gerrymandering is a problem, [Common Cause North Carolina executive director Bob] Phillips said.
"Partisanship might be the next frontier for redistricting cases," said Wendy Underhill, director of the Elections and Redistricting Program for the National Conference of State Legislatures.
Of the prospect of a Supreme Court decision in the Maryland case, Wolf wrote: "Such a ruling could have enormous effects since 55 percent of congressional districts are currently drawn to favor Republicans while just 10 percent were designed for Democrats--particularly when the current partisan and institutional balance of power significantly constrains anti-gerrymandering efforts at the legislative level."
Karen Hobart Flynn, president of the pro-democracy group Common Cause, wrote an op-ed earlier this month stating that "gerrymandering pits political power against the people, regardless of which party holds power."
On Wednesday, in response to the judge's ruling, Hobart Flynn added: "Today's decision is another victory for voters and their right to choose their legislators rather than allowing legislators to choose their voters. Partisan gerrymanders strip citizens of the ability to elect the candidates of their choice, and that is why Common Cause is fighting this gerrymander by Democrats in Maryland and why we have brought suit challenging a blatant partisan gerrymander perpetrated by Republicans in North Carolina."
Common Cause brought the North Carolina lawsuit in early August. It argues that the legislature's gerrymandering clearly violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
"What is at stake is whether politicians have the power to manipulate voting maps to unjustly insulate themselves from accountability, or whether voters have the fundamental right as Americans to choose their representatives in fair and open elections," Phillips said upon filing suit. "We believe this is a vital case that could strike at the very foundation of gerrymandering."
Deirdre Fulton
Deirdre Fulton is a former Common Dreams senior editor and staff writer. Previously she worked as an editor and writer for the Portland Phoenix and the Boston Phoenix, where she was honored by the New England Press Association and the Association of Alternative Newsweeklies. A Boston University graduate, Deirdre is a co-founder of the Maine-based Lorem Ipsum Theater Collective and the PortFringe theater festival. She writes young adult fiction in her spare time.
On Wednesday, a panel of federal judges advanced what an expert says could be "the biggest gerrymandering case in a generation." This case could have nationwide implications for elections and democracy across the United States.
The three-judge court ruled 2-1 (pdf) that the First Amendment-based claim against partisan gerrymandering in Maryland's sixth congressional district is valid and may proceed to summary judgment or trial. The ruling has no bearing on voting this November, and a decision would apply only to future elections.
"Today's decision is another victory for voters and their right to choose their legislators rather than allowing legislators to choose their voters."
--Karen Hobart Flynn, Common Cause
The case, brought by American University law student Steve Shapiro, argues that Maryland's congressional district map, drawn by Democratic lawmakers following the 2010 Census, violated the rights of 6th District Republican voters to political association and expression.
But as the case has the potential to set a national precedent restricting partisan gerrymandering, it moving forward is "excellent news for both Democrats and democracy because of how widespread Republican gerrymandering is nationwide," Daily Kos contributing editor Stephen Wolf wrote Wednesday.
Indeed, the Washington Postreported:
Michael Kimberly, Shapiro's attorney, said that if his client prevails at trial, and the case ends up back in the Supreme Court, it could eventually bring sweeping changes to redistricting across the country.
"This could be the biggest gerrymandering case in a generation," Kimberly said. "It could have enormous impact."
As North Carolina's News & Observer wrote earlier this month:
Opinions by U.S. Supreme Court justices, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Anthony Kennedy in particular, have suggested that they believe partisan gerrymandering is a problem, [Common Cause North Carolina executive director Bob] Phillips said.
"Partisanship might be the next frontier for redistricting cases," said Wendy Underhill, director of the Elections and Redistricting Program for the National Conference of State Legislatures.
Of the prospect of a Supreme Court decision in the Maryland case, Wolf wrote: "Such a ruling could have enormous effects since 55 percent of congressional districts are currently drawn to favor Republicans while just 10 percent were designed for Democrats--particularly when the current partisan and institutional balance of power significantly constrains anti-gerrymandering efforts at the legislative level."
Karen Hobart Flynn, president of the pro-democracy group Common Cause, wrote an op-ed earlier this month stating that "gerrymandering pits political power against the people, regardless of which party holds power."
On Wednesday, in response to the judge's ruling, Hobart Flynn added: "Today's decision is another victory for voters and their right to choose their legislators rather than allowing legislators to choose their voters. Partisan gerrymanders strip citizens of the ability to elect the candidates of their choice, and that is why Common Cause is fighting this gerrymander by Democrats in Maryland and why we have brought suit challenging a blatant partisan gerrymander perpetrated by Republicans in North Carolina."
Common Cause brought the North Carolina lawsuit in early August. It argues that the legislature's gerrymandering clearly violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
"What is at stake is whether politicians have the power to manipulate voting maps to unjustly insulate themselves from accountability, or whether voters have the fundamental right as Americans to choose their representatives in fair and open elections," Phillips said upon filing suit. "We believe this is a vital case that could strike at the very foundation of gerrymandering."
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.