Every 10 years, the Census Bureau and state legislators redraw district boundaries for seats in the U.S. House of Representatives, as well as for districts in their own state legislatures. The redistricting process seeks to ensure that each person’s vote counts equally and is not diluted by population shifts.

Article I, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution reserves authority over elections to the states. Historically, state legislatures have controlled the apportionment process for their own legislative districts and congressional districts in accordance with their state constitutions. After decades of holding political majorities at the federal, state and local levels, the Democratic Party lost significant numbers of state legislative seats and in 2010 effectively lost its control over the redistricting process. The Left is now seeking to restore Democratic political power by stripping state legislators of their authority over the redistricting process.

When you can’t win by the rules, you try to change the rules. Today, the Left is uniting around removing state legislators entirely from the redistricting process in favor of a non-partisan or “independent commission” approach. ACRU Policy Board member Hans von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow for the Heritage Foundation, argues that disconnecting the redistricting process from the oversight of the electorate would be very harmful to the nation:

“So-called independent commissions remove accountability —- commissioners are not accountable to voters for what they do, unlike legislators. Commissioners just move the politics of redistricting behind closed doors.”1

Non-partisan or independent commissions are never truly non-partisan or independent. They are chosen by individuals with partisan interests, and since they are not elected, they are not accountable to the people.

One insightful description of non-partisan commissions appeared recently at National Review.

If you believe that those so-called independent commissions dreamed up by our would-be electoral reformers would in fact prove non-partisan, consider how non-partisan and independent our non-partisan and independent media are —- or consider how easy it is to predict which justices will vote which way in any politically charged case before our non-partisan and independent Supreme Court.2

Another Leftist ploy is to involve the courts in determining the appropriate amount of partisan gerrymandering —- i.e. determining how much politics is enough or too much.

Hans Von Spakovsky explains why this is problematic:

Over 70 years ago, Justice Felix Frankfurter warned the Supreme Court against getting into the “political thicket” of redistricting. In Colegrove v. Green, he said that the court should not get into the business of drawing political maps. But starting in the early 1960s, the Supreme Court ignored that warning. It has since handed down a series of decisions regarding redistricting. Unfortunately, the rules established in these decisions are very confusing, which is why there are more redistricting cases before the Supreme Court almost every term.

… Drawing up political districts is, by its very nature, a political exercise by the legislative branch. How could one possibly determine how much or how little politics is acceptable in the redistricting process? The Constitution says nothing about this at all, other than to give state legislatures the authority to draw not only their own state legislative districts, but congressional districts as well.3

In addressing this important issue, constitutional principles must be upheld. The drawing of district boundaries should reflect the will of the people, and conducted through the state legislatures, not unelected bureaucrats or commissions. Involving the courts in redistricting opens the door to non-stop litigation and politicizing of the courts. This approach would insert the judicial branch into the most political of legislative activity and severely undermine the doctrine of separation of powers.

FOOTNOTES

1. Quoted in Logan Churchwell, “SCOTUS Throws Cold Water Early on Obama’s Partisan Gerrymandering Project,” Breitbart, June 19, 2017, at: https://www.breitbart.com/texas/2017/06/19/scotus-throws-cold-water-early-obamas-partisan-gerrymandering-project/↩
2. Kevin D. Williamson, “In Praise of Gerrymandering: Political Exercises Are Political,” National Review, June 21, 2017, at: https://www.nationalreview.com/article/448801/gerrymandering-supreme-court-case-redistricting-legislature-republicans-democrats↩
3. Hans von Spakovsky, “The Supreme Court Agrees to Tackle the Biggest Election Law Case in Years. Will It ‘Weaponize Our Federal Courts?” FoxNews.com, June 20, 2017, at: https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/06/20/supreme-court-agrees-to-tackle-biggest-election-law-case-in-years-will-it-weaponize-our-federal-courts.html↩

ACTIVITY

Crucial Texas Voting Case to Be Heard

WASHINGTON, D.C. (May 26, 2015) -- The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear a challenge to states giving more political power to areas with high illegal alien populations. In a brief filed in March, the (ACRU) argued that Texas and a U.S. District Court erred in approving state senate districts based on "total population" rather than on eligible citizen voters. "Total population" includes illegal aliens. Counting non-voters, including illegal aliens, when assessing the size of senate districts, gives citizens living in areas with high numbers of illegal aliens more senate seats than areas with mostly U.S. citizens, the ACRU says in the brief, filed on behalf of the plaintiffs in Evenwel and Pfenninger v. Abbott et al. The ACRU brief notes that even the United States Department of Justice uses only citizen population in allocating legislative seats in redistricting litigation. "The current Texas method violates the one-man, one-vote concept that ensures fair elections," said ACRU President Susan A. Carleson. "We're pleased that the Court is taking the case."

No. 3 Democrat: Voter ID Laws Helped Killer Cop Gun Down Victim

Did you know that voter-ID cards caused last week's police-involved shooting of an unarmed black man? This incredible revelation comes courtesy of the No. 3 Democrat in the U.S. House of Representatives, James Clyburn of South Carolina. Responding to the five bullets that North Charleston police officer Michael Slager fatally fired into the back of a black man named Walter Scott, Mr. Clyburn blamed this bloody mess on none other than the conservative American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) and its work for ballot integrity. The U.S. House Assistant Minority Leader, Mr. Clyburn explained to "Hardball" host Chris Matthews, thanks to "ALEX [sic] . . . a climate has been created in the country that's causing these things to occur all over." Clyburn continued: They have drawn up these legislations [sic], pieces of legislation like stand your ground, that legislation gives a license for people to be vigilantes. They are the ones that are drawing up all of these, uh, so-called voter-ID laws. They are the ones that have been drawing up these unfair redistricting plans. These people are a cancer eating at the inners [sic] of our society. So, photo-ID requirements are not just disenfranchising blacks who, supposedly, are incapable of possessing or even requesting them before they visit the polls. Now, voter ID is responsible for gunning down a black man.

Supreme Court Deals a Blow to Racial Redistricting

The Supreme Court has dealt a heavy blow to efforts -- often by the Republican Party -- to draw legislative districts that pack black voters into majority black legislative districts in order to elect black representatives. In a case decided today arising out of Alabama state legislative plans, the Supreme Court held that the Voting Rights Act does not require the preservation and protection of legislative districts with percentages of black voters designed to produce black elected officials. Republicans and black politicians often argue that the Voting Rights Act requires line drawers to preserve proportional black representation by creating districts where black candidates are sure to win election. These plans help Republicans by bleaching out surrounding areas helping to elect Republicans. Instead, the Court ruled that what must be preserved is the "ability to elect" minority preferred candidates of choice -- who need not necessarily be minority candidates themselves. This means legislatures can dip below numeric thresholds which create majority black districts, and not necessarily offend the Voting Rights Act.