At the U.S. Supreme Court, the justices are
considering whether extreme partisan gerrymandering
is unconstitutional.
The case could reshape politics in America.
Partisan gerrymandering is the practice of
drawing legislative and congressional district lines
to maximize and perpetuate the power
of the incumbent party.
Democrats and Republicans have done it for ages,
but the majorities they created weren't
always dependable and didn't always
last for long.
Now, though, something has changed about how
these districts are drawn: technology.
In a case from Wisconsin, a divided federal court
found that by using high-speed computer technology,
the Republican majority was able
to draw new district lines that all but guaranteed
continued control of the state Legislature
for at least the rest of the decade.
Indeed, a year after the GOP majority drew
the new lines in 2011, it lost the statewide
vote by a significant margin, carrying only
48.6 percent of the vote. But Republicans
were still able to carry nearly two-thirds
of the state legislative seats.
Until now the Supreme Court has deliberately
stayed out of the gerrymandering question,
but there could now be a bare majority of
justices ready to bar at least extreme cases
of partisan redistricting.
At oral arguments, Justice Anthony Kennedy,
who could provide the critical fifth vote
in the case, asked a series of skeptical questions
of lawyers defending the Wisconsin gerrymander;
he remained silent when those challenging it
made their case that the practice is unconstitutional
because it makes the votes of one party
less valuable than the votes of the other.
Don't make too much of that, though.
Reading Supreme Court tea leaves is a very
dangerous business.
