My district is gerrymandered

We’ve been anticipating the Supreme Court rulings on two gerrymandering cases. In Maryland the Democrats drew highly partisan maps and in Wisconsin the GOP did the deed. The Supremes have finally announced a decision! And … they punted.

In the Maryland case the GOP had challenged a particular district. The Supremes had accepted the case (which takes 4 votes) before it had gone through lower courts because it was the mirror of the Wisconsin case. But it takes five votes to rule in a case. So the Supremes said we’ll step out of the way and the case can proceed in the federal district court.

In the Wisconsin case a lower court had already ruled in favor of Dems. The Supremes didn’t say anything about gerrymandering, instead they said the Dems lacked standing – they hadn’t demonstrated their rights had been injured state-wide. A plaintiff can only assert my district is gerrymandered, depriving me of due representation. Perhaps the case needs to be split up in a series of district cases.

The reaction was: Huh? The Democrats lost seats and they weren’t injured? We have to file a case in each district?

Since the last time the Supremes heard a gerrymandering case several people have developed ways to measure gerrymandering. The easiest to explain, though maybe not the best, is the efficiency gap. But these measures indicate whether the whole state is gerrymandered and is not much use to the individual voter, the one who the Supremes said has standing.

Justice Kagan suggested that when the case comes back to the Supremes it should include a First Amendment right of association. But that wasn’t included this time, so the Supremes can’t rule on it.

The Maryland case is to proceed through federal district court and circuit court. After that it may return before the Supremes. The Wisconsin case could also be reconfigured for a return trip after the issues of standing are addressed.

But will either return to make a difference before the 2021 redistricting?