Gerrymandering Ruling a Victory or Loss?
Summary from the AllSides News Team
On Thursday, the Supreme Court ruled that federal courts cannot prevent the process of political redistricting to let politicians choose their voters. Chief Justice John Roberts' completed the 5-4 majority vote, finding that "gerrymandering is unhealthy, but is nonetheless a state prerogative that the court has no power to correct." The Constitution does not award political parties or factions the right to hold a proportional number of seats.
People throughout the political spectrum had very different views on the ruling. Voices from the right celebrated; some labeled it a constitutional victory, saying that the justices had acted logically and alike to many who'd made similar rulings before them. Others downplayed the significance of the vote entirely. Those on the left admonished the Court, saying the decision would help fuel the hyperpartisanship that can occur as a result of competitive redistricting.
Featured Coverage of this Story
From the Right
How Much Does Gerrymandering Really Matter?
For Congress, not that much, since both parties do it.
On Thursday morning, a 5–4 Supreme Court decision closed the door on having federal courts police partisan gerrymandering. The Court’s decision left standing a Democratic gerrymander in Maryland’s House districts and a Republican gerrymander in North Carolina’s, both of which were openly partisan. The Court’s decisions are, predictably, reviving the ongoing debate over the centuries-old practice of gerrymandering: state legislatures drawing congressional and state legislative districts to favor their own political party. Partisan gerrymandering is political self-interest in its...
From the Right
Gerrymandering ruling a constitutional victory 
The Supreme Court has definitively declined to involve federal courts in the Game of Thrones that is redistricting, ruling that conflicts over partisan gerrymandering are best left to politicians and the electoral process.
The two cases resolved Thursday surely presented the strongest imaginable temptation to impose the judicial will on the wheel of politics: North Carolina Democrats and Maryland Republicans alleged that redistricting plans not only discriminated against them based on their political views, they also handicapped their First Amendment associational freedoms.
From the Left
Supreme Court blows it on gerrymandering. What an incumbent racket.
Recent years have been hard on a Supreme Court trying to maintain its reputation for impartial justice. Time and again, the justices have jumped into cases that advantage one major political party at the expense of the other.
In virtually all of them — on issues ranging from the 2000 Florida recount to money in elections to restrictive voter ID laws to modern interpretations of the 1965 Voting Rights Act — the court has found a rationale for doing the Republican Party’s bidding.
AllSides Picks
April 16th, 2024
April 18th, 2024
April 18th, 2024
April 17th, 2024
More News about Supreme Court from the Left, Center and Right
From the Left
From the Center
From the Right
